Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ETC.) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Northumberland

Mr. Owen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent steps have been taken by his Department to call the attention of industrialists to the trade and employment prospects in the mid-Northumberland area, in view of the growing difficulty of finding employment by the disabled and able-bodied in the area.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Four firms have recently been shown locations in this area.

Mr. Owen: It is encouraging to know that four firms have been invited, and I hope that results will follow, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promoters of the Hovercraft experimental project are making inquiries for facilities apart from where they are at the moment? Will he look at the possibility of the County of Northumberland, with its wide coastline, its reservoir of skilled workers and its training services, being considered in this respect? Further, is he aware that it is reported that Accrington R.A.F. camp is to be closed? If that report is correct, will he carefully consider the possibility of establishing there a training centre for apprenticeship and, perhaps, a place to provide work for disabled workers?

Mr. Maudling: I shall certainly bear those points in mind when that firm or any other approaches us and requires permission to expand its activities.

Peterlee

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what measures he has in view for the provision of industry in the new town of Peterlee and in the adjoining area where a substantial number of former mine workers are unemployed.

Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade will continue to bring the advantages of Peterlee, including the industrial sites available, to the attention of firms seeking a new location. The inclusion of the town and adjoining area in the development districts designated under the Local Employment Act should be a further encouragement to industry to go to the locality.

Mr. Shinwell: That is all very well, but I have had the same answer for the last five or six years, and very few industries have come to Peterlee. Those that have come, as the right hon. Gentleman is now aware, provide some employment for female labour. What about redundant mine workers? Cannot anything be done to help them? The matter is becoming very alarming.

Mr. Maudling: We shall continue as we have in the past to point out to people who wish to expand the advantages of doing so in this area, but, of course, we depend upon the number of people coming forward with expansion projects.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for restoring and increasing the traditional trade and commerce between Aberdeen and the Scandinavian countries in order to counterbalance the loss and damage inflicted on the North-East of Scotland by the Outer Seven Agreement.

Mr. Maudling: The establishment of the European Free Trade Association will stimulate our exports to all the other member countries. It will thus help to further our policies for promoting economic activity in all parts of the United Kingdom. I do not accept the suggestion in the Question that the North-East of Scotland will be damaged.

Mr. Hughes: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, in response to letters I have sent to the Scandinavian countries, I have received replies showing that people there are very willing to trade with Aberdeen? Further, is he aware that his answer is lacking in de-finiteness, and will he do something concrete to encourage Aberdeen-Scandinavian trade?

Mr. Maudling: I am delighted to hear of the hon. and learned Gentleman's correspondence, which appears to show that 1ihe expansion of trade between Aberdeen and Scandinavia is primarily the responsibility of those who live in Aberdeen.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in detail how far he has used the powers given to him by the Local Employment Act to build factories and attract trade and industry to the city and county of Aberdeen; what are his present and future plans in this respect; how many feet of factory space are or will be involved; what inquiries he has received for the utilisation of those factories and that space; and with what result.

Mr. Maudling: The Local Employment Act came into operation on 1st April. Applications for assistance under the Act for projects in Aberdeen City and county are under consideration and will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "under consideration" is no answer to the Question, which asks for details of plans? Is he aware that this Act was passed on representations to this House that quick benefit would follow and that yet he has no plan? What are his plans?

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry if I have not made complete plans in the course of the last three weeks, but since the Act was passed we have been considering applications from people who may, we hope, go to the Aberdeen area.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Has my right hon. Friend asked local authorities for information in regard to sites prepared or ready to be prepared, and chambers of commerce for lists of existing firms who

are interested in securing fresh contacts and markets or perhaps opportunities to manufacture under licence?

Mr. Maudling: I think our regional organisation normally has very good contacts with the local authorities, and also wide knowledge of what sites are available. In so far as concerns existing firms wanting to expand their businesses, the Board of Trade is always willing to help when it can, but, by and large, this is a matter for the enterprise of the individual firms themselves.

Children's Nightwear (Flammability)

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has seen the report on flammability of children's nightwear in the Consumer's Guide, a copy of which has been sent to him; and what action he proposes to take to impress on the public the dangers of these garments and to prevent the manufacture of children's nightdresses from flammable materials.

Mr. Maudling: I have seen the report and welcome the wide publicity it has received. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer to the Answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans) concerning the Interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection.

Mrs. McLaughlin: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the fact that I used the words "Consumer's Guide" in the Question; it should be "Shopper's Guide."
Does my right hon. Friend feel that the time has come for the Government to undertake a determined effort in research on the flammability of materials, because the Interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection shows that the Committee did not find it possible yet to recommend compulsion in the matter and still, every day, elderly people and children are being burned because far too many dangerous materials are used in a dangerous way, that is to say, in the manufacture of children's and women's nightwear? Will he now pursue urgently, with the firms which have already done some research, a further effort in his Department with a view to doing some-think worth while in order to stop this terrible slaughter?

Mr. Maudling: This is a very important Report. We have only just received it. We are studying it carefully, and I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mrs. McLaughlin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Lady will not regard her question as a precedent for another one. It was rather on (he long side.

Mr. Darling: Would it not be very helpful to have more rigorous prosecution of manufacturers who put misleading labels upon their products? Further, could help be given to those reputable manufacturers who are getting near to the standards which we want?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly bear that in mind when considering the Report.

Mrs. Slater: Is there not one recommendation in the Interim Report on Consumer Protection which could be applied almost right away? Would it not help at least those who have already done a tremendous amount of research in producing the right kind of materials and safeguard many small children who may otherwise be burned if manufacturers were forced to put an appropriate label on all materials?

Mr. Maudling: I am very grateful indeed for these suggestions. We shall take them carefully into account in studying the Report.

Tyneside and Wearside

Mr. Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the recent official announcement that 6,000 new jobs are to be provided on Tyneside and Wearside, if he will now give details of the factories concerned.

Mr. Maudling: The estimate of more than 6,000 new jobs to accrue in South Tyneside and Wearside is to a large extent based on confidential information provided by the firms concerned. The projects expected to provide the jobs include those recently announced by Pressed Steel, Patons and Baldwins, Jackson the Tailor, Sigmund Pumps and Smith's Delivery Vehicles.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will watch these announcements, when they cease being

confidential, very carefully? Is he aware that we welcome these jobs and are grateful for what he has done, but that in face of the actual problem in the North-East, and much more so the potential problem, we can regard this only as a small beginning? Is he further aware that, in view of the contraction in coal mining and the recession in shipbuilding, and more so in ship-repairing, we feel that some big industry should be brought to the North-East? While we welcome what has been done, we can regard it as only a small beginning.

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome of what has been done. I agree that it is only a beginning, but it is not quite as small as all that. Certainly there is a long way to go yet.

Durham

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will enumerate the number of industrial projects which are proposed to be established in the administrative County of Durham during the next twelve months.

Mr. Maudling: Twenty-eight industrial building projects of more than 5,000 square feet are under construction in the administrative County of Durham. According to the estimates of the firms concerned, these projects should provide over 2½ mililon square feet of new factory space and over 4,000 new jobs.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said merely touches the skin of the whole problem? Is he aware that there is greater uncertainty in the County of Durham now than ever before, so much so that many people are leaving the area in search of jobs? Will he study the problem and make a further attack on the problem of unemployment in the county and see that there is more expansion of factories in the area?

Mr. Maudling: I am well aware of the difficulties in the county. I agree, as I have already said, that there is a very long way to go yet, but I hope in exchange that the hon. Member will not underestimate the fact that quite a lot has already been done.

Hovercraft

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the development and production of Hovercraft in the United Kingdom; and if he will state the extent to which British industry is now participating in and contributing towards the finance of the Government-sponsored project.

Mr. Maudling: Responsibility for the development of Hovercraft based on the principle demonstrated in the S.R.N. l. prototype rests with Hovercraft Development Ltd. in which the National Research Development Corporation holds a majority interest. I understand that several United Kingdom concerns are cooperating with that company in investigating the possibility of collaboration in future development programmes.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we are proceeding as speedily as we can in the development of this important industry? What is the position with the various schemes for such development?

Mr. Maudling: This is a matter which is being handled by the National Research Development Corporation. Therefore, I obviously cannot deal with day-to-day management any more than I could in the case of a nationalised industry. However, I have been very impressed with the keenness and imagination which the Corporation has shown on this project and I am confident that it is not overlooking any possibility which might arise.

Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport made a speech yesterday saying that we were on the verge of having Hundreds of these Hovercraft coming into this country and having transport by monorail and so on. Does he support the idea that we are just on the brink of travel by Hovercraft? Does he share those views?

Mr. Maudling: I always support my right hon. Friend's speeches.

Weights and Measures (Legislation)

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now say when he will introduce a new weights and measures bill.

Mr. Maudling: I regret that I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) on 28th January.

Mr. Darling: That was a very vague reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of traders and manufacturers who want to introduce new methods of packaging and selling their products are having difficulties in doing so under the old legislation? Is it not about time that this new legislation was speeded up, since the Labour Government started the thing in motion more than ten years ago?

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that that is necessarily a recommendation. I express regret that it has not been possible to introduce the Bill in this Session, but I very much hope that it will be possible to do so in the next.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three years ago his predecessor said that a Bill was to be introduced in the next Session? Can he tell us what has gone wrong?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the consultations with the interests involved— local authorities and so on—have been rather prolonged and complicated, also the pressure on Parliamentary time has been considerable.

Shopping Habits (Survey)

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the results of the Survey of Shopping Habits.

Mr. Maudling: I have decided that, although the Report provided some information of technical interest, it did not contain sufficient conclusions of general interest to justify publication.

Mr. Darling: We were told earlier that to some extent the new Bill would be based on the evidence from this inquiry. If that is so, is it not desirable that we should have all the evidence before we get the Bill? Without the evidence to bring the Hodgson Committee up to date, we would be in difficulties through dealing with an out-of-date report.

Mr. Maudling: I think publication would not be justified, but I would be


very glad to consider putting copies in the Library, if that would help hon. Members.

Factories, Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what stage the extension of Cummins Diesel Engine Company's factory, Shotts, has reached.

Mr. Maudling: Missives have been exchanged for the acquisition by the Board of Trade of the necessary land. Detailed plans are still under discussion between the Cummins Engine Co. and the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for Scotland.

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was in November, 1958, that this firm first applied for land for extension? Does he not realise that there has been undue delay? What promise can he give us that very soon the people of this stricken area will see another industrial building going up?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that "missives have been exchanged" is the Scottish equivalent of a signature of contract, so that the Board of Trade has signed a contract for the acquisition of land. I agree that there have been delays, but there have been reasons for them, and I think that the scheme will now go ahead.

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade when a decision will be given on financial assistance to the hosiery firm which proposes setting up business in Shotts.

Mr. Maudling: I hope that the Board of Trade Advisory Committee will be in a position to consider this application for assistance at its meeting next month

Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for years Tory Presidents of the Board of Trade have been telling me that they appreciate the very great needs of this area? Is he aware that this is a firm which, because of its associations with the area, was desperately keen to get to it? Is he not afraid that the long delay might put this firm off?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the delay has been any fault of ours. The firm made its preliminary inquiry on

25th July last. On 5th August, it was asked to fill in the normal questionnaire which it returned to the Committee on 2nd December. Information for the accountant's investigations was not received from the firm until 26th March. I think that we can go ahead now, but the Board of Trade cannot accept blame for the delay in this case.

Mr. C. Osborne: As practically all Scottish hosiery firms are extremely prosperous and extremely well off, why should this firm require public assistance? How much does it want? How many people will it employ? What sort of production will it indulge in? Why does it want public money when the industry is in such a prosperous state?

Mr. Maudling: No doubt those are matters which the Committee will consider, but the principle of the Local Employment Act is that the provision of assistance to firms which will go to these areas is not confined to companies in a needy or impoverished state. The principle of the Act is that if people go not to areas of their own choice but to areas of substantial unemployment, they are entitled to some State assistance in the process.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne), who seems to be ill-informed, that this assistance will be by way of loan, which will be an investment from the Government point of view and not an outright grant of public money?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot anticipate what form the assistance will take until I get the recommendations of the Committee.

Miss Herbison: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform his hon. Friend, who is extremely ignorant about this matter, that this is a small firm and that two brothers have shown very great initiative and any help that can possibly be given to them will be serving a very useful purpose?

Mr. Maudling: I do not want to enter a discussion about the affairs of a particular firm. I think that my hon. Friend can take care of himself. He usually does so very well.

Northern Ireland

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply details of the inducements offered to encourage new industry to come to Northern Ireland to every firm which replies to the letter sent out by his Department on 31st March to 47,000 manufacturing establishments relating to prospects for industrial expansion in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend said on 14th April, the Northern Ireland Government circularised these firms about a year ago giving them the information in question.

Mr. McMaster: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—may I ask whether he is not aware that conditions have changed here a great deal in the past year, particularly with the passing of the Local Employment Act, and that there is a great deal of concern in Northern Ireland at the very high rate of unemployment there? Will not my right hon. Friend again consider this matter and particularly the fact that all that is requested is that firms which reply to the circular should be informed of the facilities which are available in Northern Ireland? I ask this particularly in view of the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave me during the debate in the House on the Local Employment Act.

Mr. Maudling: I think that we have a subsequent Question on the Order Paper on Northern Ireland, but on the question of providing information about the Northern Ireland Government's own schemes, I think it is probably better to leave that to them; and they have already made this information available.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in Northern Ireland will be very pleased that some pressure is being applied by representatives of Northern Ireland following my visit and my speech there? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in connection with any inducements that may be offered to get new employment into Northern Ireland, the question of the excessive transport charges for the removal of goods produced there will be looked at in order to find out whether anything can be done about them?

Mr. Maudling: I am sure that Northern Ireland will welcome another doughty champion in these matters. As for inducements provided to firms going into Northern Ireland, that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government and not for me.

Mr. McMaster: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring to the attention of every firm which is refused an industrial development certificate under the provisions of the Local Employment Act the facilities made available to new and expanding industries in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. We will endeavour to do so.

Mr. McMaster: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he will also consider the position of these 47,000 firms? Is he aware that we are not satisfied that circulars sent out a year ago by the Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland are sufficient to draw the attention of these firms to the excellent facilities which are available in Northern Ireland? May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider again the position of these 47,000 firms, because the conditions in England have entirely altered since the original circular was sent out by the Department of Commerce in Belfast?

Mr. Maudling: This question is a little different from that of providing details of the Northern Ireland Government's own scheme. The Board of Trade always calls attention to the possibilities of Northern Ireland, and recently we have made new arrangements whereby when firms wishing to expand give permission we also give their names and details to the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I think that the liaison between us is good on these matters.

Poland

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade when negotiations on trade with Poland in 1960 will be resumed.

Mr. Maudling: I hope it will be within the next few weeks.

Mr. Swingler: What is holding up the negotiations? Is it not a fact that they started to run at Christmas-time and


that there has been a long delay? Is the Minister aware that several million £s worth of very important industrial orders are involved and that these would mean many jobs for workers in concerns like English Electric? Could he not expedite these negotiations?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that they are very important negotiations. The point is that we have a temporary arrangement to carry on until the middle of this year. The new arrangements will determine the pattern of trade as from 1st July. Therefore, it is important to start them in the immediate future.

Scotland

Mr. Willis: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs were provided in Scotland in 1959; and how many it is expected to provide in 1960.

Mr. Maudling: Completed industrial buildings for which industrial developments certificates were granted were expected to provide approximately 6,000 new jobs in 1959 and, as far as at present can be estimated, over 7,000 new jobs will be provided in 1960.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland needs 12,500 jobs every year just to keep pace with England, never mind deal with the unemployment situation? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the matter much more urgently than the Government are dealing with it at present?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that we have a long way to go in Scotland. I am glad to say that the unemployment figures there have improved recently, but there is a great deal more to be done.

Mr. Willis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he now has for seeking to relieve unemployment in Scotland by the establishment of State-sponsored industries.

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind in referring to State-sponsored industries, but the Board of Trade will continue to use their powers under the Local Employment Act to encourage industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we mean public

industries? In view of the fact that Governments have been trying to induce industry to come to Scotland for 15 years and that his own Government have been trying to persuade industry to go there for almost 10 years and that at the end of all this we are worse off than we were at the beginning, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is time that the Government really tried to apply a few new ideas? Is he aware that the unemployed in Scotland do not mind whether they work for public industry or for free enterprise?

Mr. Maudling: The fact is that nationalised industries are by and large basic services which are located naturally, for example, coal mining where there is coal and transport where there is the requirement. It is far more difficult to get basic industries and services to operate on a location policy than it is in the case of manufactures.

Mr. Millan: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of the total output of Great Britain's chemical and allied industries was produced in Scotland in 1948 and in 1959;
(2) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in output of the chemical and allied industries in Scotland between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Lawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of the total output of Great Britain's engineering and electrical goods industries was produced in Scotland in 1948 and in 1959;
(2) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in output of the engineering and electrical goods industries in Scotland between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Bence: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in output of the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries in Scotland between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of the United Kingdom;
(2) what proportion of the total output of Great Britain's shipbuilding and marine engineering industries was produced in Scotland in 1948 and in 1959.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total output of the vehicles industries was produced in Scotland in 1948 and in 1959;
(2) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in output of the vehicles industries in Scotland between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Steele: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in output of the Scottish paper-making, printing and publishing industries between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in output of the Scottish manufacturing industries between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Brtiain;
(2) what proportion of the output of Great Britain's manufacturing industries was produced in Scotland in 1948 and in 1959.

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of Great Britain's total industrial output was produced in Scotland in 1948 and in 1959;
(2) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in total output of Scottish industry between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Small: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proportion of the total output of Great Britain's textile, clothing and footwear industries was produced in Scotland in 1948 and in 1959;
(2) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in output of the Scottish textile, clothing and footwear indus-

tries between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Hoy: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total output of the paper-making, printing and publishing industries of Great Britain was produced in Scotland in 1948 and 1959.

Mr. Maudling: With permission, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 24 to 39 together.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Is it in order for a whole group of Questions dealing with quite separate matters to be taken in this way?

Mr. Speaker: Being apprised of this intention, I had a look at the precedents this morning. I do not think we are in a position to stop it. [Interruption.] It is very interesting, but I believe that is right. I hope that, on any view, the hon. Gentleman would bear this in mind; I do not know at all what the Minister's intentions are, but it presumably means that he has prepared one answer to all these sixteen Questions. If we were to deal with them singly, I suppose he would be entitled to repeat the same answer sixteen times, which really is not very much help. [Interruption.] No. There is no question of hon. Members' rights being infringed if that were to happen, because if a comprehensive answer in these circumstances failed to answer properly or fully some points in any of the sixteen Questions, the matter would be open to further questioning by hon. Members. I think that is right.

Mr. H. Wilson: Could you, Mr. Speaker, clarify the use of this phrase "With permission"? Does it mean with your permission, Mr. Speaker, or that of the hon. Members who put the Questions down, or the permission of the House? If it is not just a question of the permission of the Chair, could we be told what steps have been taken to obtain the necessary permission?

Mr. Speaker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked me that. I did not know, and I have looked at the precedent this morning. I find that my immediate predecessor declared that in this context it is merely a courtesy


phrase. It does not mean that there is a requirement of the permission of anybody.

Mr. T. Fraser: Further to the point of order that has been raised. I appreciate the difficulties that you are in at the present time, Mr. Speaker, but will you bear in mind the fact that we have put a series of very similar questions on other industries to other Ministers who are responsible for these other industries and that we have got individual replies to individual questions, so that we got a complete picture industry by industry, which has been helpful to hon. Members generally and helpful, I think, to students of the development of the economy of Scotland? If the President of the Board of Trade is now going to lump together some sixteen Questions raising the question of the development of many different industries, it may cloud the issue and frustrate the intentions of the hon. Members in putting those Questions down in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I quite follow the point which the hon. Gentleman is putting to me, and I hope I have made the position clear. I think that is strictly right. We do not know what is in the Minister's answer, if anything. Supposing the answer does not sufficiently cover any particular point in the sixteen Questions, that particular factor remains unanswered and is subject to further questioning hereafter. I do not think that I can help the House further.

Mr. Mitchison: On a question of principle, is not this a case where the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished? What steps can we take to prevent Ministers answering a whole bunch of Questions about different industries in one reply?

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to rule on a hypothetical point like that, otherwise we might reach the point where it is said that the Order Paper was not being used for questioning but began to look like a campaign.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order. If this is really a courtesy phrase and not a discourtesy phrase, is it not probable, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to invite the President of the Board of Trade to do what my hon. Friends obviously desire he would meet your wishes?

Mr. Speaker: I will not speculate about what any Minister might do. This does not mean that I accuse the Minister of discourtesy. I hope we can get on now.

Mr. Manuel: You indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we had no prior knowledge of what the answer would be to the various Questions, but we know that they cover a fairly wide range of industries and different aspects arising out of the economic weakness of those industries. You said that if the answer did not meet our point we could put down another Question, but the right hon. Gentleman will have departed to the bottom of the list of Questions and we shall not be able to get at him for another period of time —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a perfectly sensible point of order. Yes, I have the point. I do not think that the Chair is in a position to help the hon. Member about that. I appreciate that if the answer were to be inadequate some delay in catching up might be involved.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suspect from the amused demeanour of the President of the Board of Trade that he is having a bit of a joke with us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proper points of order are all right at Question Time. Rather dubious ones just consume time. Can we now get to this answer?

Mr. Maudling: I regret that the detailed information needed to make these comparisons is not available. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the best information we have.
I might add that all the statistical information available to the Government is also available already to hon. Members in the "Census of Production", the "Digest of Scottish Statistics" and the "Monthly Digest and Annual Abstracts", which are in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Millan: If the information is available, could we not have had some of it in the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman? Also, is it not a fact that the information which is available demonstrates that Scotland is failing to gain her corporate share of the expansion of


the United Kingdom economy, particularly in the new and expanding industries, such as the chemical industry, which were the subject of my Questions? Further, is it not particularly important that Scotland should get an increasing share of those new and expanding industries?

Mr. Maudling: I have endeavoured, in what I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to explain the rather complicated statistical background to these matters, which I thought was the best way I could assist the House. I do not know the appropriate share—that is a difficult phrase to understand—but it is true that the expansion in many industries in England has been much greater than in Scotland, and this is why the Government, through the Local Employment Act, are trying to help Scotland.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the information in answer to these Questions is already available in the "Index of Production" and other documents, should it not be the duty of the Table Office to refuse to accept these Questions? As far as I know, the practice is that if an hon. Member takes a Question to the Table Office and the information is already available, the Question is not accepted for the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: That may be right. I do not claim infallibility for the Table Office, which cannot read every mortal publication.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order. We on this side deplore such slurs on the working of the Table Office. Is it not a fact that it has always accepted Questions which involve the calculation of proportions? If it is a question of reading a figure out of a published table, that is different. Otherwise Questions are accepted, and that is the information for which these Questions ask.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member may be right. I would prefer to look at the point, because I am anxious to make some progress with Questions.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many more statistics are available to the Government than are available to hon. Members in the published documents to which he referred? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Of course, because it is the Government who pre-

pare those documents on the basis of the fuller information which they have, and we could not get the information we have sought in these Questions from the published documents.
Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when these figures are given, whatever information he is able to give us in answer to Questions, they will show that there is a considerable relative decline in industrial activity in Scotland compared with south of the Border? Will he tell us who is to blame? Is it the Government? Is it the employers? Is it the employees? If, as I suspect, it is evidence of the failure of private enterprise in Scotland, will members of the Government now get together to promote some public enterprise in manufacturing industries in Scotland, so that we can maintain our relative position with the United Kingdom?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is well aware that the main problem of Scotland is the relatively high reliance of Scottish industry on the basic industries of coal, shipbuilding and heavy engineering, which have not shared in the general boom as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lawson: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that we are seeking here to find out whether those problems apply only to the basic industries? We have asked about the chemical, footwear and paper-making industries. It would seem to me that the President of the Board of Trade is simply avoiding making an effort to answer those questions. From what information we can get, which it seems to us is not accurate, it appears that in almost every respect Scotland emerges very badly indeed. Will he not look at those modern industries, as distinct from the old industries?

Mr. Maudling: I am always glad to answer questions, but I cannot answer questions for which the information is not available.

Mr. Bence: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that there is a great possibility that within the next two or three years the advantages of creating new employment by Government action may be offset by a decline in employment and the loss of jobs in Scotland, due to contraction in


shipbuilding, the greatest industry of Scotland and England? Will he, therefore, impress upon his colleagues in the Government the necessity for immediate action to replace ships that have been serving the nation for a quarter of a century and get those ships laid down on the Clyde?

Mr. Maudling: I am well aware of the importance to the Scottish economy of Clydeside shipping. I have been glad to see recently that Clydeside has been securing good orders in competition with other European shipbuilders.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past five years, from 1954 to 1959, in the vehicle industry in Scotland there has been a reduction of 22 per cent. as against an increase of 31 per cent. in England? Does not this show that the Government are largely to blame for the present heavy unemployment in Scotland, and will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the much boosted Local Employment Act at the last General Election is completely ineffective in dealing with the unemployment position in Scotland?

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure offhand whether those figures are accurate, but they certainly do not show that the Government are to blame.

Mr. Steele: In an earlier answer, the President of the Board of Trade indicated that even in the modern industries in Scotland progress was much slower than it was south of the Border. It is exactly that problem with which we are faced to which we want to try to find the answer. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his view the lack of initiative is due to the Scottish businessman or to the lack of Government support and the lack of co-operation? We are anxious to know the facts so that we can do something to remedy the position.

Mr. Maudling: I think the right way of looking at the situation is that there are considerable natural disadvantages suffered by Scottish industry, largely due to the distance from the main centres of consumption in this country, which must be and can only be overcome by the joint effort of industry, trade unions and Government, which is what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Woodburn: As in his answers so far the right hon. Gentleman has clearly shown himself to be aware of the difficulties of Scotland in this regard, would he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in any restrictions he imposes to restrain inflation amongst the over-industrialised population of England, such restrictions will not affect Scotland's industries, and that he will introduce relaxations there to stimulate development?

Mr. Maudling: I think there is a relevant Question to my right hon. Friend on the Order Paper.

Mr. Small: The Minister has failed to answer the Question dealing with textiles, footwear and clothing. If the consumer population in Scotland is to have its purchasing power maintained, surely we are entitled to a reasonable distribution of the items that can be consumed in terms of providing some of the production units in Scotland. We have had a specific reference to Jackson the Tailor, four example. After all, we use shoes and clothes in Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: I am disappointed that the consumer industries are not stronger than they are in Scotland. I am sure that the market is there, and I believe that with an effort those industries could be expanded in Scotland.

Mr. Hoy: May I raise a question concerning Question No. 39? Can the President of the Board of Trade give the assurance that the statement which he circulates in the OFFICIAL REPORT will include comparison concerning the paper-making industry, which has to face new competition as a result of agreement with the Outer Seven? I should like to know the position of this industry relative to its capacity in England.

Mr. Maudling: When the hon. Member sees my answer, he will understand the reason why such information is not available.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are getting rather tired of this "Gimme a dime, stranger" attitude, that we do not want to go cap-in-hand to the Government for everything and that we in Scotland are ready to stand on our own feet and make our


own way in the world without Government assistance or help except when it is needed?

Following is the information:

Figures of total output for Scotland are not available.

The net output of Scotland as a proportion of Great Britain in establishments employing more than 10 persons in manufacturing industry and in certain sectors of it can be derived from the results of the Census of Production for 1948 and 1954 as shown below: corresponding data of Scottish output for years subsequent to 1954 are not available.

—
1948
1954


Manufacturing industry
9·2
8·8


Chemicals and allied industries
7·4
7·1


Engineering and electrical goods
8·4
8·6*


Shipbuilding and marine engineering
26·0
24·2*


Vehicles (excluding locomotives)
4·2
4·5*


Textiles (excluding rayon, nylon, etc. production and weaving), clothing and footwear
9·1
9·3*


Paper, printing and publishing
9·9
9·5


*Proportion of total United Kingdom net output; figures for Great Britain are not available.

The Scottish index of production, published in detail in the Digest of Scottish Statistics, gives figures for all industry in 1959 26 per cent. higher than in 1948; and for manufacturing industry 29 per cent. higher. This index is based on the pattern of production in Scotland in 1948 and is constructed in accordance with the 1948 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification. The Index of Production for the United Kingdom is not directly comparable with the Scottish index, being based upon the pattern of production in 1954 and constructed in accordance with the 1958 revised Standard Industrial Classification. The United Kingdom index shows the following percentage changes between 1948 and 1959.

All industry
+ 42 per cent.


Manufacturing industry
+ 47 per cent.


Chemical and allied industries
+ 88 per cent.


Engineering and electrical goods
+ 70 per cent.


Shipbuilding and marine engineering
- 13 per cent.


Vehicles
+113 per cent.


Textiles, clothing and footwear
+ 13 per cent.


Paper, printing and publishing
+ 78 per cent.

The extent of non-comparability precludes reliable comparison between the Scottish and United Kingdom figures for individual industries.

Swiss Watches

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms are licensed to import Swiss watches; when they were selected; and on what basis.

Mr. Maudling: Three hundred and nine firms are licensed to import Swiss watches. They were selected in 1946 on the basis of their imports of watches from all sources in the year 1st September, 1938, to 31st August, 1939.

Mr. Lipton: Is is not a quite ridiculous state of affairs that this decision should be frozen on a 1938 basis? Is it not time for the wind of change to blow away this cobweb? What has happened to the principles of Tory freedom? When is this business to be thrown open to all who wish to take part in it and not be limited to a few firms who are bribed into parting with their allocation to enable other people to import these watches?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member has quoted one of the classic arguments against controls of all kinds, and the sooner we can get rid of them all, the better I shall be pleased. As to the more expensive watches, they will be all on open general licence in the near future— in fact, they are already—and progressively we are increasing the quotas for other watches. But as long as we have quotas it is difficult to find a satisfactory alternative to a licensing system.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will find from his files that between 1945 and 1951 we removed a very high proportion of these controls based on a past period because we felt even then, 12 years ago, that 1938–39 and 1941–42 were too remote? Is it not time now in 1960 for the President of the Board of Trade to work out a more up-to-date system?

Mr. Maudling: The only up-to-date system was that on the last occasion when there was no control.

Dutch Foreign Minister (Talks)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of his recent meeting with the Dutch Foreign Minister; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: Dr. Luns invited me to have an informal exchange of views with him, as one of the series of talks which he is holding with Ministers from various countries following the meeting of the Trade Committee held in Paris in March. These meetings were the result of a personal initiative by Dr. Luns to assist him as Chairman of the Trade Committee.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more? For example, is the President aware of the speech made by the German Chancellor yesterday in answer to a colleague of his who was present, stating that the Common Market Rome Treaty was based mainly on political considerations? Therefore, does the President, after his talk with Dr. Luns, think that it is still possible for some arrangement to be made economically between the Seven and the Six?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman's question was about my discussions with Dr. Luns, which, as I have explained, were of a confidential character. My own conviction remains, that not only is it possible to have an arrangement between the Six and the Seven economically, but it is essential.

Hire Purchase

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of hire purchase at the last convenient date; how this compares with a similar date in 1959; by how much it has increased since 1st January, 1960; and what consideration has been given to keeping the transactions in this sphere within reasonable proportions.

Mr. Maudling: Hire purchase debt at the end of February, 1960, is estimated to have been £889 million compared with £596 million at the end of February, 1959; and it increased by £32 million in the two months since 1st January, 1960. The Government keep the amount of private credit extended in this and other ways under review, and are ready to take such steps as may be necessary to keep it within reasonable proportions.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, as a consequence of the threat in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th

April, the stock markets have been affected ever since, and that there is a very, disturbing influence amongst shopkeepers, who really feel that the Government must make up their mind about this and not appear to take delight in tantalising people on a matter of great importance?

Mr. Maudling: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern for the Stock Exchange, though I think it may be a little exaggerated. So far as retail trade is concerned, I cannot believe that such uncertainty in the retail trade exists, at the moment. I think it is going very well indeed.

Mr. Mitchison: What proportions has the right hon. Gentleman in mind, and on what basis does he arrive at them?

Mr. Maudling: By calculations of judgment.

Mr. Osborne: Could my right hon. Friend say how far he thinks this £300 million increase in the hire-purchase debt in this country is sucking goods into the home market which ought to be exported, and how far is it affecting our balance of payments position? Does he not think that something ought to be done pretty quickly about it?

Mr. Maudling: I think it is certainly having some effect, although it is impossible to estimate how much. I believe that there is a later Question on the Order Paper to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these matters.

Bicycles

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to request the Monopolies Commission to inquire whether monopoly conditions exist in the manufacture of bicycles and allied products.

Mr. Maudling: New references to the Commission are still under consideration and no decision has yet been taken.

Mr. Jay: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the chairman of Tube Investments Limited, which has been mainly responsible for the centralisation of bicycle production, has been invited by the Government to advise on the decentralisation of the railways, and does he think that this is a happy choice?

Mr. Maudling: I do not quite see how that arises out of the Question. The flexibility of private enterprise is, to my mind, one of the assets of this country.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this flexibility has been shown by Raleigh Industries bringing out a new model, a super lightweight sports model, which is about to be launched on the market under the title of Blue Streak?

Mr. Maudling: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is some point where it is necessary to resume order.

HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF (UNION REPRESENTATION)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the failure of the Commissioners responsible for regulating the pay, pensions and terms of service of the staff of this House to recognise and enforce the rights of trade union negotiation, he will take powers to transfer the duties of the Commissioners to a body more representative of the Commons as a whole, as recommended by the Select Committee on Accommodation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. We debated these matters as recently as 31st March.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that, recently, one trade union at least has written to the Minister of Labour complaining that it is denied normal representative arrangements in dealing with House of Commons staff? Is the Prime Minister also aware that in the evidence before the Stokes Committee, Mr. Speaker Morrison agreed that a body established in 1812, such as the Commissioners were, was due for some sort of revision and reconsideration? In view of this, will not the Prime Minister take seriously the fact that our arrangements in the House of Commons for dealing with the staff are feudal and out of date, and will he, therefore, carry out the recommendation of the Stokes Committee?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This matter was discussed in the House only a few weeks ago. My right hon. Friend

the Leader of the House said on this matter that the Commissioners
meet sufficiently often to give confidence to the staff
and that
The staff of the House have confidence in them, and I should prefer their constitutional duties not to be altered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 1650.]
In view of the fact that we have had this matter under discussion, I could not be expected now to make any radical change.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the only way of finding out the feeling of the staff is by allowing the staff normal methods of trade union organisation and representation? Is it not typical of the mediælval paternalism of the Government's attitude on this matter that they presume to say what the staff think without giving the staff facilities for trade union organisation to express their views?

The Prime Minister: I admire the eloquence of the hon. Lady, but I do not think she has advanced the argument any further than when it was debated a few weeks ago.

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (DETAINED BRITISH PERSONS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made towards securing the release of Miss Stanton and other citizens of the United Kingdom and British-protected persons detained without trial in South Africa; and whether he will now make direct representations on behalf of those still in detention to the Prime Minister or deputy-Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the result of his undertaking to do all that he can to help and protect United Kingdom citizens now under arrest in South Africa.

The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom High Commissioner has remained in close touch with South African Ministers and has been informed that Miss Stanton would be released on the undertaking that she would leave


South Africa without undue delay. The question of her eventual return to the Union would be considered in the light of conditions and circumstances at the time when she applied for leave to return. Miss Stanton has, however, stated that she feels unable to give this undertaking to leave South Africa.
The only other citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be detained, who is not also a South African citizen, is Dr. Letele. He has been visited by a representative of the High Commissioner, who has reported that he is in good health and has no complaints about his treatment. The High Commissioner is continuing to urge the Union Government that Dr. Letele should be released or charged as soon as possible.
As far as is known, no British-protected persons are being detained.
Four citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies from Basutoland have been arrested on charges of public violence in connection with the disturbances on 21st March. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations informed the House yesterday, the High Commissioner has engaged legal advisers who are available to assist these men.

Mr. Driberg: Why should this remarkable—indeed, noble—woman be kept in prison because she refuses to be deported from the land and from the work to which she has dedicated her life? Is there any charge against her? Why is she still in prison? Does the Prime Minister remember saying a fortnight ago that this matter would not be allowed to drag on?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We made strong representations and this offer to Miss Stanton was made. She took time to consider it and arrangements were made that she should have the opportunity of discussing it with her lawyer, with her brother and with the assistant warden of the Tumelong Mission. She has now decided not to accept release on these conditions. We are, therefore, continuing our efforts to press that she should be either released unconditionally or charged.

Mr. Marquand: How long does the Prime Minister think that this process will continue? Does he realise that it is a month since these people were imprisoned without charge and that almost

a fortnight has passed since he undertook to do his best? What would the Prime Minister have done if the circumstances had arisen in a foreign country? Would he be content merely to continue to say that somebody was keeping in touch? Would he not demand immediate action, and should he not do so now?

The Prime Minister: We are, of course, demanding that action should be taken. It is only within the last few hours that I have heard that Miss Stanton had refused this offer of release on leaving the country which we had obtained.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity next week of discussing this case with Mr. Louw when he is here? Will my right hon. Friend mention to him that as the representative of this lady in my constituency, I have received fifty letters from all over the country testifying to Miss Stanton's character and mentioning, in particular, that she is of a most peaceful disposition and not likely to be mixed up in any violence? Will my right hon. Friend therefore press Mr. Louw to see whether a charge could not be brought so that she could have the opportunity of facing trial?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, of course. Naturally, had the Prime Minister himself been able to come, I would have discussed it with him. As Mr. Louw is coming, I shall certainly discuss these and other questions and will have the opportunity to do so within a day or two. I or my friends concentrated on the High Commissioner's trying to get the lady released. Then, there was the condition of her leaving the country. She considered it for some days and then decided—I admire and understand her reasons—not to accept it. We are, therefore, now pressing that she should be either charged or released without conditions.

Mr. Brockway: Without in the least wishing to minimise the importance of the case of Miss Stanton, whom many of us revere, do I understand the Prime Minister to say that no citizen and no protected person under British care has been arrested? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine this matter again?


Are there not thousands of protected persons from the High Commission Territories in Johannesburg? Have they not been open to arrest in the same way as other people in Johannesburg? Will the Prime Minister look into the matter so that we may be sure of the facts?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I will make further inquiries, but I have given the information which has been given to us from the High Commissioner. There is the case of Dr. Letele, with whom we have been in close touch, and we are urging that he should be either released or charged as soon as possible. We do not know of any other case of a British-protected person being detained. Four citizens from Basutoland have been arrested and charged.

Mr. Marquand: As I have pressed this matter on several occasions, may I say that we welcome the Prime Minister's undertaking to take up this matter with the representative of the South African Government? May we take it that when he has done that, he will make another statement to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the forbearance of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. He will, I think, realise that what one tries to do is to get the results. Whether one is dealing with a Commonwealth country or a foreign country, mere protestation and statements are not always enough. What we want to try to do is to get the results. I welcome the chance in the next ten days while he is here of discussing the problem with Mr. Louw and trying to point out to him personally how much it would help in the reduction of tension on other matters if he could help us over these matters.

Mr. Marquand: I asked the Prime Minister whether he would then make a statement to the House, or must I put down another Question?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps it would be simplest if the right hon. Gentleman would get in touch with me to know whether it is easier by Question or by statement. Often, a Question at Question Time is more convenient than statements after Question Time. I or one of my colleagues will keep in touch with the

right hon. Gentleman and we will use the most convenient method. When the conference of Prime Ministers ends, I have to go to Paris, so it may be necessary to ask one of my hon. or right hon. Friends to make a statement on my behalf.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his statement in reply to the last question that the release of this lady would reduce tension on other matters? Does he mean that to do common justice to this lady, either by charging her or by releasing her, would reduce tension on the policy of apartheid, which should be condemned and abhorred by every decent citizen in this country? I am sure that that is not what he means.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Member wil not take away the value of some of the arguments which I might use in order to obtain what I want.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harold Wilson. Business question.

Mr. Grey: On a point of order. May I ask your advice Mr. Speaker? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has put down Written Question No. 6, which appears on today's Order Paper. I assume that that Question will be answered today. How is it possible for hon. Members, on either side of the House, to obtain the Answer to that Question without having to wait until tomorrow morning until they read it in HANSARD or the daily papers?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is that it is not possible for hon. Members to obtain the Answer until the OFFICIAL REPORT is available to them.

Mr. Lipton: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Speaker: The time for a statement is after the business question, which I have called.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 2ND MAY—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate will take place on Housing and Local Government in England and Wales and Scotland in Committee of Supply on the appropriate Votes.
TUESDAY, 3RD MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 4TH MAY—Report and Third Reading of the Radioactive Substances Bill [Lords]; and of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the draft Census Order, 1960.
THURSDAY, 5TH MAY—We shall begin the Report stage of the Betting and Gaming Bill.
I have already informed the House that we shall propose that the House do not sit on Friday, 6th May, in view of the Royal Wedding.
We shall make good the time for the private Members' motions which will thereby be displaced and I will make a statement later.
MONDAY, 9TH MAY—The proposed business will be Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Committee. A debate on Primary Education will take place on the appropriate Votes.

Mr. H. Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the request by the Opposition for a full-dress debate on foreign affairs, including disarmament and other matters that are likely to be raised at the forthcoming Summit Conference, and if so, what does he propose to do about it?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal to debate the Finance Bill on Tuesday means that there is a rather short interval between now and then in which the House can study this long and complex Bill? Is he aware

that the Bill consists of 73 Clauses of great legal complexity and that there is at least a little controversy, I understand, on his own side of the House as well as on this side? In view of all this, will not the Leader of the House reconsider the matter and bring up the Finance Bill for Second Reading a little later?

Mr. Butler: I should prefer to consider the question of a debate on foreign affairs, disarmament and other important matters when my right hon. and learned Friend returns. But I will discuss it with my right hon. and learned Friend and with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There will be some difficulty about finding time, but the wish of the Opposition has been noted.
On the question of the Finance Bill, to be discussed on Tuesday, I have looked up the precedents and I find that the interval is the same as last year and in 1957, and that it has been within that margin previously. I realise that the time is short, but we had a late Easter and I think that it would be difficult now to alter the date. I wish to say, however, that we are allowing what amounts to a fortnight between the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, which should give hon. Members an opportunity to put down their Amendments in good time. I think that the general sense and the lines of the Bill are known. It would be very difficult to alter the arrangements now.

Mr. Wilson: I do not wish in any way to praise the Finance Acts of 1957 and 1959, which we criticised at the time, but they did not have anything like the same degree of legal complexity that we find in the present Bill. Is not it a fact that the Bill raises some difficult questions involving principle and judicial matters and independent tribunals, mote evasion and things of that kind, to which a great deal of thought must need be given?
We welcome the proposal to have a fortnight's interval between the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, but does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it would be more in accord with the convenience of the House as a whole if we had a longer interval before the Second Reading debate; in return for which I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House would


be prepared to accept a shorter interval between the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage?

Mr. Butler: I do not want to be unreasonable—the right hon. Gentleman has put his points reasonably—but I think that it would be better to stick to the programme, which is the best we can do, and allow good time for Committee points to be considered and for Amendments to be put down. I notice that the Finance Act of 1948 contained 76 Clauses and 10 Schedules, but so reasonable were the Opposition of the day— namely, our party—that we managed to get it through in five sittings of the Committee.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Regarding the postponement of the Motions to be debated on Friday, 6th May—I am so glad to know that now there is no risk of my Motion stealing the headlines on Saturday morning—will my right hon. Friend say when he hopes to make a statement about when these Motions will be taken?

Mr. Butler: I have noted the very moderate and reasonable view of my hon. Friend. I will make the statement fairly soon. I do not think that we shall be able to provide time before Whitsun, but we shall, however, provide it.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to take the Report stage of the Betting and Gaming Bill next Thursday. Will he make a statement about what he proposes to do regarding the Report of the Peppiatt Committee? Will he see that any charge imposed on any subject as a result of the Report is settled in this House and not in another place?

Mr. Butler: I was hoping to make a statement on the general attitude of the Government towards the Peppiatt Report, and the procedure relating thereto, before the Report stage begins on 5th May. I think that it would be convenient, and I will try to make it. I believe that there may be a Question put down on 4th May, but if not, I will make it on 5th May. I will try to make a statement before reaching the Report stage. I do not anticipate that an actual charge will be levied on the subject as a result of this, which is a recommendation regarding a levy. Nevertheless, the

point about considering these matters in this House should be borne in mind.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will it be good enough if we get the right hon. Gentleman's statement as late as that, and if it indicates that the Government intend to incorporate, or try to incorporate, the proposals of the Peppiatt Committee in the Bill? To do that Amendments will be needed on Report stage straight away, and we should need considerable notice in order to consider whether we should put down Amendments, what Amendments the Government have put down and whether we should seek to amend the Government Amendments. If the statement is to be as late as that, I hope that it will be to the effect either that the Report stage will be postponed, or that the Government will not try to incorporate the Peppiatt proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Butler: In view of that, I should be prepared to try to make a statement earlier. In any case, I think that it is revealing no secret to say that it would be difficult to include the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee in the Bill on Report. The Peppiatt Report, although an excellent one, does not include the detailed scheme which has still to be worked out and considered properly by the House and then put into force. I suggest that I take an earlier opportunity to make a statement, but I do not want to get involved in the dangers which the right hon. Gentleman foresees.

Mr. Ross: In view of the increasing concern in Scotland, and among hon. Members on this side of the House, about the unemployment situation there, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will find an early date on which we could discuss the Motion, in the names of every Labour Member on this side of the House who represents a Scottish constituency, urging the Government to take the new step of participating in industry in Scotland?

[That this House, while welcoming the efforts being made to induce development of private industry in areas of high unemployment, believes that where those efforts prove insufficient it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to bring full employment to those areas by setting up and operating publicly owned enterprises.]

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is concerned and that the reluctance of the Government to give us any information reveals that the gravity of the situation is such that they do not wish even their supporters to know what it is. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the best way to deal with the matter is in a debate and not by means of questions and answers?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that during questions on business is the right time to go into the merits of this matter. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other members of the Government would be only too glad to tell not only our supporters but the House as a whole about the beneficial effects of our policy—

Mr. Ross: There have not been any.

Mr. Butler: —but I see a little difficulty in finding a date owing to the pressure of business. But that does not mean that I do not realise the importance of the subject.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many days he proposes to allocate for consideration of the Betting and Gaming Bill? Will he say whether the second, third or subsequent days will be in the following week?

Mr. Butler: It is not easy for me to give advance notice, but I think that the next day will probably be in the following week—that is a simple statement, and on that I do not think that I can go far wrong. I hope that we shall not be long on the Report stage. There is no question of allocating time. We hope to get through the Report stage as quickly as is reasonably possible. We shall hold the usual discussions with hon. Members who are chiefly concerned, and through the usual channels, about handling this matter with efficiency and speed.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in Scotland will be offended at the apparent complacency revealed by his

answer to my hon. Friend? Would not he think it extremely appropriate if a debate on this question took place on 6th May?

Mr. Butler: I think that it would be a little difficult and might not result in a sufficient number of hon. Members being present to do justice to the importance of the subject. As for complacency, we are fully aware of the need for help for Scotland and Scotland is fully aware of our interest.

Mr. C. Pannell: Are we likely to have a statement from the Leader of the House at a fairly early date about when he proposes to announce the membership of or the setting up of an ad hoc committee which was contemplated during the debate on accommodation in the House? Some hon. Members think that the right hon. Gentleman is rather unwilling to get round to this subject.

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works hopes to announce his plans and produce a model, and so forth. I have already talked with the Leader of the Opposition about the constitution of this committee. There is no question of any dilatoriness in this matter. It is the path of wisdom which I am following.

Mr. Houghton: Is there any hope of the Leader of the House persuading his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to circulate, in advance of the debate on the Finance Bill on Tuesday, an explanation of the more unintelligible Clauses in the Bill so that the Government spokesmen may be able to address a House which is not so bewildered as usual?

Mr. Butler: I think that we may rely on the pellucid clarity of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Leader of the House tell us what reason he has for thinking that sufficient hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies would not be prepared to be present on 6th May to discuss the question of unemployment in Scotland? Does he not realise that there are a sufficient number of hon. Members from Scotland prepared to use that opportunity to discuss the greatest economic and social problem in Scotland at present?

Mr. Butler: The Government propose to put down a Motion that we should not sit on 6th May. I realise the importance of this subject and I do not doubt that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies would appear on any occasion to speak indefinitely on any subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that answer.

Mr. Callaghan: Has the Leader of the House noted that the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), relating to Welsh leasehold reform, has still failed to make any progress? If we were to offer him facilities, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, in his turn, would give a little Government time to allow us to get this Measure through?

Mr. Butler: I should like to examine carefully the facilities which the hon. Member would offer to me.

CONTROL OF CREDIT

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the control of credit.
In opening my Budget I said that the time might soon arrive when it would be right that we should take other steps to restrain further expansion of private credit.
One of the possibilities I had in mind was that it might become necessary to exercise some restraint on bank advances. As the House will recall, when the restrictions on bank advances were lifted in July, 1958, I announced a new arrangement under which the Bank of England would, if need be, call for special deposits. The Radcliffe Committee showed a preference for an alternative method but, having re-examined the matter, I have decided that this is the most convenient one.
In the light of the figures for bank advances in recent months, and particularly those for the month ended 20th April last, the Bank of England, with my approval, have made an intial call on the London clearing banks and the Scottish banks to make special deposits with them on or before 15th June next. In the case of the London clearing banks, the initial special deposit is to be 1 per cent. of each bank's total deposits; in the case of the

Scottish banks, whose present circumstances are different, the figure is ½ per cent.
At the same time, the Government have decided that some restraint should be placed on the growth of credit extended under hire purchase. For this purpose, Orders have been laid today by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Their purpose is to restrict the terms on which cars, wireless and television sets, kitchen equipment, furniture and a wide range of other consumer goods may be bought on hire purchase. The initial deposit will be 20 per cent., except for furniture and some other items, for which it will be 10 per cent. The normal period of repayment will be two years, except for a small number of items for which the period will be four years. Capital goods are, in general, excluded from the Order.
These measures, together with the Budget, will act as a check on the tendencies making for overstrain on the economy while not preventing the continuance of sound and steady expansion within our resources.

Mr. H. Wilson: This statement will come as a great shock, if not—after the experience of the present Home Secretary a few years ago, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—as a great surprise. We are now back in the position in which we were in the autumn of 1955 and early 1956—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense"]—that after a long-delayed increase in national production and, of course, after the election, the Government have felt it necessary to put the screws on again.
We do not object to the technique of special deposits. Indeed, I may say that we first suggested it from this side of the House on 9th May, 1956. I am sure that that will commend it to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Does not this mean that the Chancellor is choosing this moment, after a not very ambitious expansion compared with other countries, to put on the squeeze—even in Scotland where, as we have already heard, there is developing a problem of unemployment?
Having won the election on a hire-purchase boom, is not there something shabby and cynical about putting on these curbs once again within a few months of winning it?

Mr. Amory: What the right hon. Gentleman has imputed is wildly contrary to the facts. This step was foreshadowed in my Budget speech, and is fully in line with the objective that I declared then of not halting expansion but of putting a slight brake on its rate to ensure that the rate of continued advance would be within our resources. I am perfectly clear that these steps are completely in line with that objective.

Mr. Wilson: While this was foreshadowed in the Budget speech, it was not foreshadowed at the election. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is still the policy of the Government that industrial production should continue to expand? Is that still the Government's policy, because it is quite clear, from some of the measures which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, that, owing to the failure of the Government to expand capacity through adequate industrial investment over the past few years, the Government are now putting the screw on, with a danger of a down-turn before long?

Mr. Amory: In my last reply I gave the answer to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just asked. It is our aim that industrial production should continue to expand, and production generally, but at a rate within our resources. Both before and during the election I made it clear that if, at any time, there was any risk of a return of excessive pressure and inflation, I would not hesitate to take whatever steps were necessary.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to get us out of this recurrent dilemma that whenever production rises—and it has risen by smaller amounts than in most European countries—we have to have restrictions, accompanied by a vague threat that these are only initial deposits? May I also ask why, when restrictions are put on hire purchase, they are always imposed on kitchen equipment? These things are not luxuries, but the tools of trade of many people.

Mr. Amory: If the hon. Gentleman has any specific questions to ask about different percentages, I hope that he will address them to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The

hon. Gentleman will find that certain kitchen equipment is given exceptional terms for a much longer period of repayment.
The rate of increase in production recently has been quite exceptionally rapid. I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question by saying again that it is our continuing aim to ensure that production will continue to expand, as I have no doubt it will under our present policy, but not at a rate which will endanger our balance of payments.

Mr. Thorneycroft: While not quarrelling with the decision which my right hon. Friend has taken—it may be regarded as almost inevitable in the circumstances in which he finds himself— does not he agree that the introduction of a special deposits scheme is an economic act by the Government of prime importance? In those circumstances, would it not be right for a full day's debate to be given to an act of this character? I am not quarrelling with it, but it does seem that the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, which is inevitably concerned with a great many complex legal matters, is somewhat inappropriate to a decision of this sort.

Mr. Amory: This is an important subject and it is a new procedure, but it is a procedure which I explained to the House at the time we devised it in July, 1958. I have made it perfectly clear that we have had it available and that it would be used directly circumstances justified it. It is not, therefore, a newly-devised scheme in that sense.

Mr. Jay: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that under Conservative Governments we repeatedly have a spending spree before an election and a series of restrictions afterwards? Is it really wise to conduct our economy by a series of politically inspired jerks of this kind?

Mr. Amory: I do not remember either the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues objecting to any of the removals of restrictions made during 1958 or 1959.

Mr. H. Clark: Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of insulating the less prosperous parts of


the United Kingdom from these deflationary restrictions? I refer particularly to Northern Ireland, which has twice the amount of unemployment of Scotland.

Mr. Amory: The special deposits scheme does not apply to Northern Ireland, though the hire-purchase restrictions do.

Mr. Lipton: Has not the need for this unhappy statement been brought about by the unpatriotic refusal of bank directors to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's request to cut down on advances? Has not the time come for the Government to tell the people "You have never been had so good"?

Mr. Amory: I have made no direct request to the banks, and this device is an alternative to making a request to the banks.
As to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, there are no signs that the nation at large is dissatisfied with its lot.

Mr. C. Osborne: Will the special bank deposits mean that the "Big Five" will have to sell big amounts of gilt-edged? What effect is this statement likely to have on the gilt-edged market? Is my right hon. Friend confident that the articles which would otherwise have gone to the home market in hire purchase can find a ready export sale? Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to see that these goods can be sold abroad?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend will note that I have given the banks a reasonable time in which to adjust their existing commitments to the effect I want to see, which is a moderation in their advances. That being so, and the fact that the initial deposit that I have asked for is a deliberately moderate one, will influence them in the direction of moderating their advances rather than selling gilt-edged stocks. What they do will be entirely up to decision by the banks concerned.
My hon. Friend will also find, if he looks at the list of industries covered by the hire-purchase control, that most of them have good, and, I think, increasing opportunities for exports at present. I hope very much that cutting back demand for their products in the home market will enable them to expand their exports.

Mr. T. Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what possible justification there is for imposing these restraints in Scotland? Is he aware that Scotland has 4 per cent. unemployment—85,000 people? The Scottish people will wonder why he is able to say that these special deposits will not apply in Northern Ireland, but will apply in Scotland, although at ½ per cent. as compared with 1 per cent. south of the Border? Why impose any curbs or restraints in Scotland? There has not been too much expansion there.

Mr. Amory: The position is by no means as simple as the hon. Gentleman seems to think. The Scottish banks have a practice of lending not only to Scotsmen north of the Border but to a great many others south of the Border. There is a great deal of cross-lending both from south to north of the Border, and vice versa.
I am quite satisfied that the differentiation here between ½ and 1 per cent. does complete justice to the Scottish banks and to Scotland in general. Northern Ireland banks have never been subject to the requests or controls to which Scottish and clearing banks have been subject.

Mr. Steele: Does not the Chancellor realise that his explanation makes the position much worse? The banks in Scotland will now have to consider whether the money is to be lent in Scotland or in England. If we get our usual proportion, we shall get less. Surely there is no overstrain in the economy in Scotland. If the Chancellor takes this view, surely he could say to the Scottish banks that in Scotland at least any business which wishes to have an overdraft and needs the money to ensure that Scottish industry will be helped should get it.

Mr. Amory: Again, the position is not as simple as the hon. Members implies. I am certain that this differentiation does complete justice to Scotland. I had hoped that hon. Members from Scotland would be grateful to me for ensuring this discrimination as far as it has been possible to make it. I have referred to different circumstances in Scottish banks. One of them is that the conventional liquidity ratios on which Scottish banks work are a good deal more flexible than those in England.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the difficulty of cross-lending, would not it be wise to say that where both English and Scottish banks lend for development in Scotland there should be no restriction? Indeed, this should be so not only in Scotland. This is not only a Celtic matter. The North-East Coast and other places of high unemployment are concerned here. It is wrong to treat those areas as though inflation existed in them. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make some discrimination between places which require development and those which are over-developed?

Mr. Amory: I am sure that I can continue to rely on the Scottish banks, like the banks south of the Border, to give high priority to genuine requests for advances for development. They have always done so to date. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that even loans to Scotsmen do not always result in increased employment or development in Scotland.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a vastly interesting subject, but, clearly, we cannot debate it without a Question before the House.

LAW OF THE SEA (CONFERENCE)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
The House will already be aware that at the Conference the proposal put forward by the Canadian and United States delegations on the breadth of the territorial sea and on fishery limits failed by a single vote to secure the necessary two-thirds majority. By this narrow margin a great opportunity has been lost of establishing a rule of law in this very difficult sphere. I am sure that the House will share my own great disappointment that the efforts of the 54 nations which voted for the only possible compromise failed when success was so nearly within our grasp. We must now consider with like-minded nations the situation resulting from the failure of the Conference.
We recognised from the outset that agreement could be reached only if there was a genuine readiness to compromise and, for our part, we made every effort to meet the desires and aspirations of other countries. The proposal put forward by Canada and the United States would have recognised a 6-mile territorial sea, and a 12-mile exclusive fishery limit, subject only to a 10-year period of phasing out for established fishing rights. Even this proposal was subject to qualifications which would have further safeguarded the interests of those states which are specially dependent on the fisheries off their coasts. But we supported it, as did many other countries from the Commonwealth, Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America.
I have made clear throughout that this proposal would have entailed great sacrifices by our own fishing industry. But the industry was ready to make these heavy sacrifices for the sake of a lasting settlement. I would like to pay a very sincere tribute to the loyal support and encouragement which all sections of the industry gave me throughout the whole of the negotiations.
In the absence of an international agreement, the Government maintain their former position on the breadth of the territorial sea and fishery limits. We will now have to examine the implications of the new situation with which we are confronted. We are well aware of the problems that will face our fishing industry, in particular the distant-water fleets. To function efficiently, the industry must be able to plan for a long period ahead, and it is now faced with continued uncertainty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I shall be discussing these very difficult problems with the industry as soon as possible.
During the Conference we declared our readiness to negotiate an agreement with Iceland that would have given her far more favourable treatment than the general terms of the Canadian-United States proposal. I also said that we would be willing to accept independent arbitration on this point. I am sorry that these offers had no response.
We remain ready, however, to negotiate with the Icelandic Government, but we do not recognise their unilateral claim for a 12-mile fishery limit and our naval


vessels will continue to give assistance to our fishermen. But, as an earnest of our good will and our readiness to negotiate, our naval vessels will, for the time being, patrol only beyond 12 miles from Iceland.

Mr. Peart: The Opposition are sorry that nothing constructive emerged from this Conference. In view of the failure to accept a compromise which Britain was prepared to accept, will the Government immediately consult other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, which played a very important part in this Conference?
Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman says that he will consult the industry as soon as possible, what does he mean? The industry should be consulted immediately in view of the urgency and also the uncertainty caused to our fishing interests throughout our sea ports. I agree that it is right and proper that we should give our fishermen every protection consistent with international law. After all, they have behaved with great restraint. They are in a very hazardous occupation. They are a great part of our national life. We welcome the fact that the Government will ensure that there will be patrols up to 12 miles from Iceland.
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman continue to press upon the Icelandic Government the fact that Britain is still prepared to negotiate?

Mr. Hare: I said that we must now consider with like-minded nations the situation resulting from the failure of the Conference. Certainly, our friends in the Commonwealth would be some of the first we would consult with on this point.
As I think I made clear in my statement, we have already offered to make special arrangements with Iceland. We were prepared to accept arbitration. Those offers still hold good, but it takes two to make a bargain.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I think that most hon. Members would agree that my right hon. Friend has done a very good job in Geneva and that he has put the position of the fishing industry very well. Can he give us some further information as to why the Icelandic Government have turned down the offer of arbitration?

Mr. Hare: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I think that it is very unwise to give reasons why other Governments do things. I am particularly anxious not to say anything which might stop the possibility of an agreement, and I think that the House will be with me on this. I have said clearly in my statement that I hope we can get together, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment on the question that ray hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) asked.

Mr. Hoy: First, I should like to thank the Minister for the expeditious way in which he has presented his report. Will he ask the Fleck Committee to follow suit? That might help to solve some of the problems in the industry.
Secondly, in view of the failure of this Conference, which we all deplore, would it not be a very good idea if the right hon. Gentleman were to take action now, perhaps not so much with Canada and America, but with European countries, including the six countries which form the European Economic Community, the seven countries of the Outer Seven, all of which are in Europe and all of which have supported the 6 to 12-mile proposal at Geneva, and those fishing in the North Sea waters? Along these lines, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman might be able to arrive at a settlement which would give satisfaction to all the countries of Europe.
I am perturbed about the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, in which he says that
as an earnest of our good will and our readiness to negotiate, our naval vessels will, for the time being, patrol only beyond 12 miles from Iceland".
That calls for further explanation. Does it mean that the trawlers will go inside the 12-mile limit, say, up to the old 4-mile limit, which was recognised, and that the naval vessels will have to patrol outside that area so that protection will not be given to the vessels inside the area? This calls for a little more elucidation. There are other questions which I should like to ask, but I will leave them for our meeting with the Minister.

Mr. Hare: Throughout the whole of the Conference I was in the closest


possible touch with our European neighbours and I shall continue to keep in touch with them on the problems which will face us as a result of the breakdown of the Conference.
I understand that today the trawler owners are having a meeting at which they will decide whether or not they will return to Icelandic waters. What they will decide is, of course, entirely up to them, because the Government do not recognise anything except the 3-mile limit. I hope that it is clear from what I have said that our naval vessels, for the time being, will not patrol within 12 miles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we have made it quite clear that we think this is an earnest of our good will and that we hope to make an agreement with Iceland. I hope that it is also clear that in so saying we do not prejudice in any way our future freedom to take such action as we think right.

Lady Tweedsmuir: If the Government stand by the former official limit outside Iceland should they not, therefore, until a possible agreement is reached, try to send naval vessels as protection, at any rate up to four miles, otherwise the position of the fishermen will be very ambiguous? If the Government stand on the original 4-mile limit, and recognise it in law, should not they provide the protection necessary?
On a completely different point, will my right hon. Friend say what is the position now of the voluntarily negotiated Faroes Agreement? Will that go on and if so, for how long?

Mr. Hare: The fishing industry will decide where it is going within the waters off Iceland. I understand that its decision as to actually where it goes will be taken today. I think that it would be wrong for me to say what will be the instructions of the trawler owners to their skippers. I want, however, to repeat that as an earnest of our good will we are temporarily confining the patrolling of our vessels to outside the 12-mile limit in the hope that we shall reach agreement with our Icelandic neighbours.
In reply to my hon. Friend's second point, the Faroe Islands Agreement runs until the middle of 1961. Then it will be due for revision.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the Minister appreciate that the view expressed that the proposals which the Government were prepared to accept were very generous is not exclusively shared on the other side of the House? It is also shared on this side of the House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are all extremely concerned about the question of fishing within the 12-mile limit? Is it the case—it looks a little doubtful at the moment—that the Government are trying to persuade the trawlers in any way to go outside the 12-mile limit at present? What will be the position if, in fact, some trawl within the 12-mile limit? If a trawler goes within the 12 miles it may be seized by the Icelandic Government. What action will be taken by naval patrol vessels outside the 12-mile limit? May we have an answer to that question, as we are all very much concerned about it?

Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the first part of his supplementary question. I am glad that he thinks that it was generous. On what he said later, I would make this comment: the Government cannot persuade or order the trawler industry to do this or that. As an indication of that, I would remind him of what our fishing industry did as a gesture of its own at the Conference, when it withdrew entirely of its own free will from Icelandic waters. What the industry's decision will be I cannot tell at the moment, but I shall know as a result of this afternoon's meeting. It is for the industry to decide.
The action of Her Majesty's ships will be decided on the spot. Naturally, if our vessels are seen by Her Majesty's ships to be molested by Icelandic gunboats, it would be up to Her Majesty's ships to take the necessary action.

Mr. Grimond: When the right hon. Gentleman discusses this matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, will he bear in mind that there is some anxiety lest the restriction to certain outside waters means there are more trawlers on the ground round our coast, with consequent depredations of stocks of fish?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman, I think, realises how greatly concerned my right hon. Friend and I are about this whole question of conservation. These


are matters which we keep constantly in mind when we have discussions with our friends in the fishing industry.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be some limit to this discussion. There is no Question before the House.

Mr. Hoy: May I, Mr. Speaker, ask whether the Leader of the House can say something about a debate?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No doubt, on the appropriate occasion, that question can be asked.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. I represent a fishing constituency, Sir. Surely I can be given an opportunity of asking a question.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of great distress to me. There are lawyers interested and fishermen interested and I should like, if I thought it accorded with my duty, to allow everyone who had a question to ask it. But there is no Question before the House and there must be some limit to this form of irregular discussion.

CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.18 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker, I have it in command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that she has been graciously pleased to place Her prerogative and interests at the disposal of Parliament so far as they are affected by this Bill. I shall be indicating later where these arise.
In preparing and introducing the Charities Bill, I have taken pride, with my hon. and right hon. Friends, that after a century of social progress this is the second great legislative step in our history to assist the resources of charity and to enable them to play their proper part in contributing to the well-being of the nation. The last occasion was just over 100 years ago. Then it was the strongly prevailing tide of reform of the 1850s which carried into law the Charitable Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855, which I would describe as the first great legislative step to assist the adaptation of charity. The historical background then was the Industrial Revolution and the agricultural revolution. For the first time in our history, large movements of population had taken place.
If we look at Clapham's history we find him referring to
a situation that had probably not existed before in a great country at any time in the world's history.
Between 1801 and 1831 alone, the population rose from 11 million to 16,500,000 and by 1851 half the population was urban. So it was against this background that the previous big legislative step was taken. As will be seen in a few moments, it is to meet a new social situation that the law of charity has to be revised in our day.
At that time, charity law could not keep pace with the revolutionary changes taking place in the country. Between 1818 and 1837 Royal Commissioners carried out a monumental survey of all known charities and their condition, and their reports disclosed in many places


a lamentable picture of decay and loss. Those Acts of 100 years ago established the Charity Commissioners to advise, protect and assist trustees, and to undertake the variety of duties which have come to be associated with them. In 1860—just 100 years ago—the Commissioners were given additional powers to exercise the High Court's powers to make cy-prés schemes—matters to which I shall be referring later—to transfer property and to remove and appoint trustees.
But the statute law relating to charity is very much older than the nineteenth century, and it is a measure of the task confronting the draftsman of this new Bill that the clearances affected by the Fifth Schedule go back to Henry VIII's time, the first part of the Seventh Schedule to Elizabeth I, and the mortain repeals to Edward I. It is my hope that as a result of these clearances the Bill will go far to simplify that part of charity law that rests on statute.
No doubt all those who are lawyers and wish to take part in the debate will realise that this statute law must be read in the context of the case law and constitutional law making up the corpus of jurisprudence that regulates the application of private property to purposes beneficial to the community. For that is what charity law is about—rights over private property devoted to public purposes.
In the long sequence of the history of charity there are many chapters, and the Church and the Crown have had a considerable part to play. We find as early as Piers Plowman a list of works which rich merchants were enjoined to undertake for the good of their souls; and these examples reappear in the list of typical works of charity given in the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601. The Church and the Crown have taken important parts in the practice and administration of charity. In the middle ages the Church laid stress on giving by the rich for the benefit of the poor as a Christian duty and means of salvation. Indeed, the Church undertook to distribute benefits on behalf of those who could not do so in person because they had left this world for another.
Clearly, some oversight was required to secure the carrying out of undertakings of this kind; there was always the risk, for example, that the monastery

or other distributing organisation might think that a better use could be found for the money, and the ecclesiastical courts, therefore, had jurisdiction to enforce the intention of the founder.
In Tudor times the State took over from the Church the enforcement of the founder's intentions, there being no individuals with rights under a charitable trust who could do so, and, therefore, the Crown, as pater patriae undertook to enforce in the courts, at the suit of the Attorney-General, any trust of property that was charitable. The Crown, while approving of almsgiving, could not tolerate—and here we come to mortmain—that land should be permanently tied up in this way. Land was held on feudal tenure by lords on whose support the king relied in war.
Where there was no adult male, the Crown profited by the revenues during minority or wardship, and substantial sums were levied on succession by the heirs. The law of mortmain therefore prohibited land being devised to a corporation without licence from the Crown, the penalty being forfeiture. This prohibition, with ancillary provisions, has survived to this day. The law of mortmain is thus tied up with the law of charity, and that is why it has not been possible hitherto to get rid of this anachronism in the law of property without the legislative adjustment of charity law which I am now undertaking, and in respect of which I signified Her Majesty's pleasure at the opening of my speech. Thus it will be seen that the Crown is closely concerned with charity, both as regards its prerogative and its rights under the law of mortmain.
There is great social significance in the steps we are proposing to take in this Bill. A century ago the problem could be stated thus: the way of life and distribution of the population have changed; how can the resources intended for them by past generations be adjusted to the new needs? Today, our problem in the social sphere runs more as follows: the basic needs of the people are met by the people acting through the Government; what is left for individuals, past or present, to do for them?
This was the fundamental question— historically an entirely novel one—which was raised by Lord Beveridge in his


book "Voluntary Action", and was referred by the Government of 1950 to a Committee presided over by Lord Nathan. Here, I would like to express our gratitude to Lord Nathan and the members of his committee for the classical work they performed in this sphere. I hope that they will accept the gratitude of the House and those interested in the Bill. It will be seen that while we have not agreed with every point in the Nathan Report, we have followed, in general, the lines they recommended to us.
There is a convenient summary of the principles enunciated in the Nathan Report in paragraph 723, which the Government wholeheartedly adopt. We differed in some respects from the Nathan Committee, however, in the application of these principles: and our policy was set out in the White Paper on Charitable Trusts, 1955, and is embodied in the Bill before the House. The whole series of Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1939, and the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Acts have gone, together with a host of other statutes, in the Fifth and Seventh Schedules, which have ceased to have effect or have been overtaken by Acts not confined to charities. What remains valuable has been re-enacted.
The Bill goes a long way to meet the recommendations of the Nathan Committee that the statute law should be incorporated in a single intelligible Statute. Besides the numerous adjustments of the machinery of charity law to which I have referred, the Bill makes four major reforms directed to the social realities of today. In the order in which they come in the Bill, Clause 1, read with the First Schedule, will reconstitute the Charity Commission with a Minister—the Home Secretary of the day—having a strictly limited responsibility to Parliament, not for their decisions but for their effective running of a public service.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the establishment of a public central register of charities. Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are intended to establish a statutory foundation for voluntary co-operation between charity and the statutory welfare services on a basis of equality and partnership. Clause 13 will extend and specify the conditions which must be satisfied before the

purposes of a charitable trust can be altered by a cy-pres scheme, to which I referred in my short historical introduction and thus make it much easier for charity to adjust itself to the rapidly changing needs of today.
Turning, therefore, to my first point— Clause 1, the reconstitution of the Charity Commission—I emphasise that one fundamental object of the Bill is to maintain the freedom of charity from political pressure in the future as in the past, and to reconcile this with the need for adequate relations with the services which are supported by public funds and for which Ministers are responsible.
I have given much thought to the proper balance between ministerial responsibility for the Commissioners, and the maintenance of their independence as, in part, a quasi-judicial body. My proposal is that as Home Secretary I, or whoever holds the post of Home Secretary, shall be responsible for appointment and removal of the Commissioners, who will be senior civil servants; I shall not control their activities, but would receive an annual report from them and lay it before Parliament. I will make regulations and other Statutory Instruments affecting their work and will be responsible for the Vote, and, therefore, answerable to Parliament for that.
I might mention in passing that the task so ably performed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) of piloting through the House an annual quota of Parliamentary schemes involving amendments of the private or public Acts regulating individual charities, would, in future, fall to me, or one of my hon. or right hon. Friends. We thank him and hope that we may have the benefit of his support in this Measure which, to that extent, has one major defect in that it cannot for the moment carry him along with us.
It is my intention to see that the Charity Commission is re-equipped for its new tasks. It will be strengthened by the addition of an administrative element—not, indeed, to administer policy laid down by the Government, but to help to bring its work into relation with the services administered by other Departments.
For the first time, too, the Statute in Clause 1 (3) will set out explicitly the


general functions of the Commissioners, to encourage good administration, to advise and assist charity trustees, and to investigate and check abuses. These functions have been performed in practice for many years, but now, in stating them in terms, we hope to consolidate the relationship with trustees that the Commissioners have sought to establish.
It is another part of the Bill's foundation that the trustees remain wholly and solely responsible for the administration of a charity: the Commissioners have no power to administer it themselves. So much for Clause 1 and the attendant Schedule.
The second major innovation to which I referred is the establishment of the central register of charities, which is dealt with in Clauses 4 and 5. This should enable social workers, potential beneficiaries and benefactors to discover what charities exist, their purposes and beneficial area, their approximate income and address for correspondence, and would also serve as a permanent record to ensure that charities in the future do not, like so many in the past, become forgotten and disappear. We were warned about this by the great review between 1818 and 1837. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that anything recorded is, in fact, and in law a charity. It is a grave defect of the present law that there is no authority, short of the Chancery Division, which can determine whether an undertaking is a charity at law or not.
The third main feature of the Bill is contained in Clauses 10, 11 and 12, which establish a statutory foundation for the future co-operation and partnership of charity trustees and local authorities. Here, let me stress that the Bill confers no compulsory powers on local authorities whatever. On the contrary, it emphasises and encourages the voluntary nature of co-operation.
Looking at this more closely, first, under Clause 10, a county or borough council that is willing to maintain for public inspection an index of the charities with benefits wholly or mainly intended for its area, will, on request, be supplied with copies of relevant entries in the central index. The whole purpose of Clauses 10 to 12 is to place local authorities and charities on a footing of equality, not of subordination.
Clause 11 has been modified to make it clear that a local authority is not empowered to carry out an inquiry into the working of a single charity; that is the province of the Charity Commissioners. The local authority's function is to take the lead in arranging a conference where trustees and representatives of local authority services can, if they wish, sit down together and review the work they are all doing as a whole, so as to eliminate overlapping and enable the best use to be made of charitable resources. That is one of the main problems of today, and one of the main objects which the Bill sets out to secure.
Clause 12 is intended to place beyond doubt the power of local authorities to arrange for mutual co-operation with charities working in the same field, and, in the interests of beneficiaries, to exchange information, including that obtained by welfare workers in the course of their official duties. Such co-operation already exists in many fields, for instance, as regards my own sphere of influence, in co-ordinating case work on children neglected in their own homes; and this Clause is intended to set the seal of Parliamentary approval upon the principle.
I should like to make it crystal clear that there is no possibility of the destruction of a local charity. It is not intended that there should be a general sweeping up of small local charities into omnibus funds. On the contrary, the Bill provides means whereby the trustees can more easily adapt the charity to changing circumstances and so enable it to continue a useful life in accordance with the intentions of the founder.
I now come to the fourth general point. Clause 13 makes less stringent the conditions which must be satisfied before the law can sanction the alteration of a trust to take account of changed circumstances; and the Third Schedule enables adjustments to be made to the beneficial areas of parochial charities within the limits of the neighbouring parish or parishes where shifting population or other changes make it advisable for the working of the charity. That should adapt this to modern times but the emphasis remains on the sole responsibility of the trustees for the administration of the charity and for initiating any changes in its application.
Clause 13 is thus intended to make it easier for charity to adapt itself to new situations by obtaining a cy-pres scheme. It will no longer be necessary to establish that it is impossible to carry out the founder's wishes. Instead, the Clause sets out a series of conditions short of failure, which if satisfied would make it probable that a reasonable man would have disposed of his property for some purpose or in some way otherwise defined.
This does not mean that trustees are at liberty to do something else merely because they think it would be a better idea than the founder's; on the contrary, the founder's intentions continue to be the principle which guides any different application of his application of his property.
These, then, are the four cornerstones of the Bill—the remodelling of a century-old machine, the establishment of exact knowledge about what charities exist, the statutory basis for co-operation between charity and statutory services, and, finally, the amendment of the law of cy-pres to make it easier for charities to adapt themselves to changing conditions.
I am conscious that there may be many other details of the Bill which may be considered in its passage through the House. But today I am painting with a broad brush. Our record of voluntary service is unrivalled in the world. We are so used to it, perhaps, that we do not value it for the rare and extraordinary heritage it is. Now is the moment to recognise the truly public services of charity, to accord it its due place in partnership with the statutory services, and to assist them to go forward in harmony together, each making the best use of its available resources and enhancing and developing its special virtues.
In commending the Bill to the House, I must say that its proposals have been discussed with the principal representatives of organised charity. I understand that representatives of the great trusts, the City companies, the National Council of Social Service, representing a very wide range of voluntary service, the Churches, and other important bodies have expressed themselves as generally satisfied with the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Chancery

judges, and some amendments have been made to give effect to their advice in another place. There, too, it has undergone a searching examination of legal and technical details; and undertakings have been given on behalf of the Government regarding the content of certain amending and excepting regulations as regards registration and land transactions which I have pleasure now in reaffirming.
I have some reason to feel, therefore, that this Bill commands a very general measure of acceptance. I hope that hon. Members will turn their minds to it and try to improve it, but realising that we are taking part in a small pageant of English history in relation to charity law and the practice and use of charity. I confidently commend this charter of charity to the House.

4.41 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: In the first place, I associate hon. Members on this side of the House with the gratitude expressed by the Home Secretary to Lord Nathan and his Committee for the work which they put into the Report which is the foundation of the Bill. That Committee was set up by the Labour Government in 1950 to report on changes necessary to enable the maximum benefit to the community to be derived from charitable trusts. It is in view of the present condition of charitable trusts that we have the recommendations in the Report, and it is with the purposes of that Committee in mind and upon its Report that the Bill is founded.
The present conditions with which we are concerned are generally that there are vast charitable assets in the country and that in too many cases it is not known where the charity is, who the trustees are, or what the charity is for. Over too wide a range, charities are unknown, unco-ordinated and often competitive. Overall, in a very large area of charitable work, the position is little short of chaotic.
On top of that, as the Home Secretary indicated, there has been superimposed the Welfare State, so that we also have the problem of the Welfare State making a good deal of what was formerly charitable work superfluous or redundant. We therefore have the problem of fitting in charities first with other charities and,


secondly, with that large section of what was formerly charitable work which is now undertaken by the Welfare State.
The Lime has come for a general review of the charity position, because it is time to move from what has hitherto been the negative attitude of preventing abuses in particular charities and dealing with particular charities separately to the much more positive attitude of administering the great field of charity as a whole, to the greater advantage of the community. That is the purpose of the Bill.
In doing that, there are dangers. The great problem which the Bill has to meet is that of co-ordinating and systematising charities and State welfare, bearing in mind and securing two absolutely vital conditions. The first of those conditions is that by systematising we should not systematise the voluntary spirit itself out of existence. The second point about which we are vitally concerned is that we should not subject charities to political purposes, nor use charity as an alibi to relieve the Government of a responsibility for obligations which Parliament has itself accepted. Charity should not be used indirectly either for relief of taxation or for relief of rates.
Nor should charities be used for investigations which would properly be the subject of Government responsibility. The true scope of charity, as is seen from the Nathan Report, is, first, to pioneer new fields of development in charitable work, including, if need be, acting against the Government itself, and, secondly, to fill the gaps in the social services. It is with those purposes and those considerations as completely fundamental that we approach the Bill.
I come to the Bill itself. As on previous occasions I have made some somewhat severe remarks about drafting, I must now indulge myself in the pleasure of most warmly congratulating the draftsman of the Bill. I am in the happy position of not knowing which of my friends among the Parliamentary draftsmen has in fact drafted it, but whoever it was is responsible for a masterly performance. The task was enormous, as the Home Secretary indicated. The draftsman has reduced all this mass of legislation to what the Home Secretary, in his capacity as a layman, described as a single, intelligible Statute. Indeed, it is a layman's dream of what a legal document should be.
In our view, the substance of the Bill is generally admirable, but we are concerned with specific points. I can most profitably indicate the points with which we are concerned, and it may help to let the Government know what our general attitude is towards various aspects of the Bill, since that might save considerable time at later stages.
Before doing so, I want to refer to one subject which has been the cause of considerable debate in another place, in the country and in the legal profession. That is the subject of the definition of charity. Personally, I am most strongly and firmly opposed to there being any definition of charity in the Bill, and I am very glad that no definition has been given. A definition must be either by enumeration, which is utterly impossible and which would quickly be out of date, or in general terms. If it is a definition in general terms, do we want it narrower or wider than it is at present? We should immediately land ourselves in a most hostile argument about the definition we want. Some would want it more flexible and some more precise, and we should merely land ourselves again in the same difficulties of application as we have had in applying the law of charity in the past.
The one possibly acceptable suggestion has been that we should cut out the Statute of Elizabeth, which to some extent could be regarded as being a definition of charity. If that were done, it would leave the law of charity very much as it stands and we should therefore be legislating merely for the sake of legislating. If it did affect the law of charity, I do not know, and I challenge anybody else to say that he knows, what the effect on the law would be. It would mean more work for lawyers. Thus, it can be seen that my opposition to definition is not from any trade unionist point of view. One point which is often made about definition is that the nexus of employment should be included in charity. I would be personally opposed to that being included in a definition of charity. Among other things, it seems to me that it would make even wider the present opportunity for Income Tax evasion.
The first substantial proposal to which I want to refer is that concerned with the register. Essentially, this is a


Committee Bill and I am afraid that I must deal with these matters separately under their different headings. Of course we welcome the proposal for the register. It is an essential first step to reducing order out of the present chaotic position of charities. I will indicate various aspects about the register with which we are concerned.
I understand that it is calculated that about 150,000 charities will be registered. Will there be an adequate staff for that purpose? I understand that an administrative staff is to be added to the Charity Commissioners. What we are concerned about is that the registration should be treated as an entirely separate function, separately provided for and not interfering with the present work of the Charity Commissioners, who are at present under-staffed and who will have considerable additional work to do. It is utterly useless to put forward a Bill of this kind without providing the proper staff to work it. We might as well not have the Bill at all.
Nor is it any good having the cheeseparing attitude which some people have adopted towards the Bill, saying that we must be extremely careful not to have any kind of reasonable increase in staff in the Charity Commissioners' offices. Of course we must have an increase in staff. That does not mean to say that it is not beneficial to the country to spend money on increasing staff to provide a more efficient administration of charity, for, after all, that is the whole purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is defeated if there is not a proper staff to operate it.
We should like some information about what is to be registered. At the moment, it is left entirely to the Commissioners to decide. Obviously the name and address of the charity and the trustees will have to be registered, as will the primary purpose of the charity. Equally, or nearly as important, we should have the secondary and subsidiary purposes registered. Is there, however, to be no indication of the size of the fund? It would be most helpful to have that. What other particulars is it contemplated will be included in the register?
There are to be a number of exemptions from the register. We agree with the Government that institutions such as the British Museum and the universities,

which are mentioned in the Second Schedule, should be excluded. Equally obviously, very insignificant charities should be excluded. However, we come to the very much more difficult problem of religious charities, and I should like to spend some little time dealing with that subject.
Religious charities are in an exceptional position. In the first place, they are extremely resentful, and rightly resentful, and jealous of any State interference. After all, what makes them religious charities is an act of faith on their part. Their very nature is completely different from government, and I can well understand that those charities and the people responsible for them would consider Government interference in religious charities as utterly intolerable.
These charities are denominational only, of their very nature. Of their very nature, they are well known to those within the denomination—or can easily be ascertained—unlike many other charities. They are in a peculiar position in that way. In a way which does not apply to many other charities, their trustees are either controlled by the central denominational organisation, or, if there is no central denominational organisation, are controlled by and subject to the criticism of the local congregation.
In religious charities, therefore, we have charities whose voluntary spirit, to put it that way, is of a particularly precious and delicate nature. They are organised in such a way that they are known and their trustees are responsible to people who know what they are doing. They are in a position altogether different from that of trusts, such as those raising money for tuberculosis research or something of that kind, admirable charities in themselves but without the checks which religious charities provide. Such charities are utterly different creatures from religious charities.
There is, therefore, a very weak case for the registration of religious charities. The Government have rightly excluded any registered place of worship and any institution administered by the Church Commissioners. They have stated that they are giving consideration to exceptions for the working funds of churches and a large number of small religious funds which are of denominational interest only. I do not know how far that goes.
I have dwelt a little on religious charities because of their extreme importance, to make clear to the Government our position in principle in approaching the religious charity problem, and also to probe the Government on the nature of the consideration which they are at present giving to religious charities.
Will chapels, church halls, Sunday schools and ancillary buildings, manses and caretakers' houses, general working funds of churches and subsidiary organisations such as Sunday schools and choirs, and young people's organisations, be exempt from registration? How far does the Government's consideration of exclusion from registration go at present? We should be grateful for an indication of the Government's attitude on this. Further, will the exemption apply not only to registration but also to the obligation to render annual accounts under Clause 8? If not, why not?
Such exceptions as are to be made, apart from those already mentioned in the Act, are to be made by regulation. I fail to understand why these exceptions should not be included in the Bill. We are dealing with the exclusion of a class of charity, of necessity, by definition, not by enumeration. If it is a matter of exclusion by definition, it is a matter of exclusion on principle. If it is a question of principle, it is a principle which should be embodied in the Bill.
Various charities and classes of charities have been exempted in the Bill as it stands. The real reason for considering making further exemptions by regulation is not that they should not be in the Bill, but that the Government have been dilatory about dealing with the exclusion of the charities whose exclusion they are now considering, and therefore it will be more convenient for them as administrators to deal with them by regulation rather than by amendment to the Bill. That is not the way to treat Parliament. They should be included in the Bill. In due course we shall press that whatever the Government eventually decide should be excluded should be stated in the Bill, rather than being dealt with by regulation.
The fourth point on registration is the presumption that a charity when on the register shall be conclusively presumed to be a charity. We welcome the pro-

posal, because it makes the position of the charity whilst on the register, and the consequences of its being a charity, completely certain and not subject to being upset. A charity can be crossed off the register if it is shown that it should not have been registered at all. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will confirm my impression that the effect is that, as long as the charity is on the register, for Income Tax purposes it remains exempt for the period when it is on the register and there can be no retrospective operation by reason of the charity being taken off the register subsequently. That is a very sensible provision which will be very widely welcomed by charities.
As a corollary of that, it is essential that there should be what is contemplated by the Bill, namely, an exchange of information between the Inland Revenue and the Charity Commissioners with a view to arriving at an agreed list for inclusion in the register of charities.
I come to the local authority's index. We should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would give us a little more information about that. From the wording of the Bill it does not appear to be limited to charities in the central register. It looks as though the index might go wider than the central register. We should be grateful for some information on whether this is intended.
If it is to be wider than the central register, I suppose local authorities will obtain their information not only from the central register but from other sources, too. Will the particulars to be included in the index be the same particulars as in the central register? Will it be a duplicate of the central register? What exactly will it be? It is described merely as "index" and not as a local register in itself. Exactly what functions will it perform, and how will it perform them?
I come to the provisions dealing with the administration of charities. Generally, we approve of the Commissioners' powers about accounts, inquiries and so on. I want to come straight away to what has been perhaps the most difficult and controversial Clause, namely, Clause 28, covering restrictions on dealing with charity property. It is clearly advisable to have these restrictions where there is otherwise no adequate check on trustees.


We not only accept that but support it. However, it does not seem to us advisable just to substitute the business discretion of the Commissioners for that of the trustees. If that is done, it is apt to sap the independence of charities, and this is the kind of thing which is felt particularly by the religious bodies. As the Nathan Committee said in paragraph 196:
It is, after all, the essence of voluntary action that it should act in accordance with its own judgment.
Cases nave been trotted out in which, owing to the intervention of the Charity Commissioners in religious charities, more money has been obtained for land than would otherwise have been obtained. I do not in the least gainsay those instances. The chances are that such cases are bound to have occurred. What we have not been told is the number of cases in which there have been losses because of the delay caused by this form of administration. What is vital is not this material aspect, but that State interference is being superimposed on a religious body in administering its own body of religious assets. Why? Why should not those who form themselves into a religious body or join a religious body administer their own assets in their own way? If they do not make the best business judgment, it is a matter for them.
We are very much in danger here of impinging upon a spirit of independence and freedom of religion which is incomparably more precious than obtaining a little more money for a little land. The national organisations, such as the Boy Scouts and living Churches through their denominations, provide a check on their own trustees. They are in a peculiar position in that respect. There are beneficiaries, in exactly the same way as in a private trust, who can call the trustees to account.
We welcome the Government's indication that they are considering the position again. They have given certain undertakings, but I do not know how far those undertakings go. I do not know how limited they are. In the case of such national organisations as the Boy Scouts and the Lifeboat Institution, I understand that there will be no interference under Clause 28 with transactions in respect of local premises pro-

vided from the general expendable funds of the national charitable organisation.
Exactly what are the limits of that undertaking? Does it mean merely that, if local premises for Boy Scouts are bought out of local income of the central Boy Scouts organisation, they can be resold because it will be treated as income only? Does it mean that, if bought out of capital from the national organisation or capital or income of the local organisation, they will not come within the exemption? Exactly what is its operation? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be in a position to clarify that later.
Undertakings were given about places of worship. Do these exceptions, referring to denominations, apply to land forming part of a permanent endowment, as they appear to apply to them, on the face of it, or are they meant also to be limited to land bought out of income, as appears to be the case with such organisations as the Boy Scouts and the Lifeboat Institution?
It is again proposed that these exceptions should be in regulations. Exactly the same remarks as I made about excepting by regulations from registration apply to excepting by regulations from Clause 28.
There is also a proposal about common investment fund schemes. We welcome this wholeheartedly. It means that we will have more expert advice available for charities. I also welcome the Government's decision that there is to be no distinction between the list of charity investments and the list of other trust fund investments. That is a very wise decision.
Cy-pres is another topic bristling with difficulties. The expansion of cy-pres is a vital part of the Bill to enable better use to be made of charitable funds, for example by amalgamation between charities. The whole purpose of the Bill would be largely defeated if this section of the Government's proposals were omitted. We welcome the proposals to extend the area as the Home Secretary indicated, and we welcome the ability to change the purpose of a charity after forty years.
One particular difficulty is caused by that subsection which, for purposes of cy-pres, preserves what we call the


requirement of general charitable intention. In other words, where a gift is given for a particular purpose, as happened, for instance, in the case of the Gillingham disaster and in the case of several colliery disasters about which I know certain of my hon. Friends are deeply concerned, it is given only for the relief of distress among those affected. Subscriptions are made, and then, if for some reason the distress is met in other ways, there may be a surplus in the fund or the whole of the fund cannot be applied to the purpose intended. The result is that something must be done with the money.
Unless the courts can find that there is a general charitable intention, that is to say, an intention to benefit charity as such generally over and above the intention to benefit the particular people affected by the disaster, the money cannot be devoted to other similar charitable purposes. It has to be returned to the subscribers, if they can be found. The subscribers may have given small sums of money. Expense might be incurred in trying to find them. If they cannot be found, as so often happens, the money is paid into court and there lies dormant, not being applied to charitable purposes at all.
It has been proposed that, in those cases, the money should be applied cy-pres to some similar charitable purpose. I appreciate the difficulty that substantial sums may have been contributed for the particular purpose of relieving distress among those injured by, for instance, a colliery disaster and for no other purpose at all. If substantial sums are provided in that way, quite clearly it is unjust to apply the money cy-pres. But I do not understand at all why another course could not be adopted. General advertisement should be quite sufficient because, in all these cases, the public take a great interest before subscriptions come in; all the facts and circumstances are known and all the newspapers keep up with them. Why should there not be a general advertisement, as is done in the case of executors under the present law? If a general advertisement were put out stating that subscribers who wished their money to be returned should apply for the return within a certain time and,

failing that, it would be applied cy-pres, that would surely be sufficient. I do not understand why that could not be done.
It seems to me that that would be much the fairest way of dealing with such contributions, because one would, in that way, in all the circumstances, come as nearly as one possibly could to the intention of those who gave the money. Now, on the other hand, the money is not even returned to those who subscribed unless, of course, they are found and take it. It simply lies in court. I commend the suggestion to the Government for their consideration. We shall certainly bring something forward on those lines in Committee. It would, of course, apply to all those sums of money which at present lie dormant in court. Why should they not be applied cy-pres in exactly the same way as in the case of future contributions?
The last point I wish to make about administration touches another aspect of charity which bristles with difficulties, namely, the imperfect trust. Where property is given to charitable and non-charitable objects in such a way that the whole can be applied to the non-charitable objects, the gift has none of the legal advantages of charity. There is, for instance, the well-known case of a gift not merely to charitable purposes but to charitable or benevolent purposes. The charitable purposes, of course, are charitable, but the benevolent purposes go far wider than charity and, therefore, are not exclusively charitable.
Where there is a gift for charitable or benevolent purposes, the whole of it might be applied to benevolent purposes only. Since it might be applied to benevolent purposes only, it need not be applied to charitable purposes and, therefore, it is not a charitable gift at all. Again, the difficulty created here is being considered by the Government.
I appreciate and agree with the strong objections which have been made to the whole gift being treated as charitable. It seems to me to be utterly contrary to the testator's or donor's intention to treat the whole gift as charitable when, in fact, his intention was to give not only to charitable purposes but to benevolent purposes also. I agree so far. My suggestion is that, where charitable purposes are expressly mentioned with other purposes, then the gift should be treated


as divided proportionately between all the purposes.
For instance, if there is a gift to charitable or benevolent purposes, half of it should be treated as having been given to charitable purposes and half of it should be treated as having been given to benevolent purposes. The half given to benevolent purposes would be subject to the ordinary rules of law applicable to non-charitable gifts. The half given to charitable purposes would be subject to the rules of law applicable to charitable purposes—the far more favourable rules for preserving the effectiveness of gifts which apply in such cases.
That appears to me to approach far more nearly to carrying out the intention of the donor. It is ridiculous that the whole gift should fail. The objections to the whole of the gift failing are precisely analogous to and the very counterpart of the objections to the whole of the gift going to charity. It seems to me that the only proper solution is to treat the gift as being given proportionately between the different purposes specifically mentioned. If only one purpose is mentioned, such as a benevolent purpose, which might include charitable purposes but might include non-charitable purposes, it should be treated as a non-charitable gift because in such a case it is far more difficult to say that the testator has shown a charitable intention than in the case of a gift to charitable or benevolent purposes. My proposal is, therefore, very limited. I hope that the Government will consider it. In my view, it comes most nearly to effecting a just solution in what are admittedly difficult circumstances.
I come to the Commissioners themselves who are fixed with the responsibility of administering the Bill. The composition of the Commissioners is obviously a matter to be decided in the light of the work they do, so let us consider that. They are to make and keep the register. They axe a scheme-making body. They are the people who, in making schemes, are responsible for amalgamations of charities and the better use of charitable funds. That is essentially a matter requiring business knowledge and a wide knowledge of the workings of charities.

Thirdly, the Charity Commissioners provide advice and assistance, certainly on law but, in addition, on accounts generally and the administration of charities from the business point of view. Lastly, they are concerned with investigating and checking abuses.
The Commissioners have to carry on their work in the light of the general purposes of the Bill. As I said earlier, the general purpose and effect of the Bill will be to shift the emphasis from the negative and the legal functions of the Commissioners to positive and administrative functions extending over the organisation of charity as a whole. What this work demands, therefore—not exclusively, but predominantly—is a wide and diverse experience; business experience, experience of charity, and a wide social outlook.
We should, therefore, expect a fairly strong body of Commissioners, satisfying these requirements. Instead, we have three, of whom two are to be lawyers. We completely fail to understand why, contrary to the recommendations of the Nathan Report, the Commissioners are to be so limited in numbers and in composition. I should like an explanation from the Government why, contrary to these recommendations in the Nathan Report, they have made these two decisions, the one as to numbers and the other as to composition.
To some extent, this defect in the Bill —because it is a defect—can be met by an advisory body, but I must confess that I do not like advisory bodies. I like bodies which have effective executive power. One then gets responsible decisions and one knows that the work is effective, because the members of the body take a greater interest in it. An advisory body is a very poor also-ran.
Nevertheless, if the Government are to proceed on this small, narrow composition, it would be better to have an advisory body than to have nothing at all. We know that that can be done by administrative action outside the Bill altogether but, before we finish this Second Reading debate, we should like to hear from the Government an explanation of their decision about the Commissioners and their attitude towards the advisory body.
The Home Secretary has given an explanation of his functions, but we are


concerned about the question of responsibility in Parliament and the answering of Parliamentary Questions. I do not know how far the operation of the Bill can be probed by Parliamentary Question, or exactly what the attitude of the Minister is towards it. The recommendation of the Nathan Committee was that, in the first place, the Lord Chancellor should be responsible for charities; failing the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President; and only thirdly the Home Secretary.
We should like to know why it was eventually decided that the Home Secretary should be the Minister responsible. There are arguments both one way and the other, we know, but particularly in view of the Nathan Committee's recommendation—and, in fact, as I understand it, the opposition of the Home Office itself before that Committee to taking on this charity work—we should like to be told what decided the Government to allocate this responsibility to the Home Office.
The Bill is very welcome, and we agree with its general principles. It is, of course, full of Committee points, but I hope that in the course of this debate we shall be able to clarify the position to some extent, so that in Committee we shall know a little better what the Government have in mind. We may thus be able to reduce what might, I am afraid, in any case be a rather prolonged Committee stage.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: Having served for a few years as Parliamentary spokesman for the Charity Commissioners, I am happy to have the chance to mention one or two things. Both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) have paid tribute to those who work on the Charity Commission, and I, too, should like to add my congratulations and to thank them for the work that they have done so very well during very many years. I believe that it is now 108 years since the Commission was set up.
It was originally established to enable small charities that had to go to law to get some matter straightened out to avoid the cost of expensive litigation, and I believe that the Commission has done

a good job in providing free advice for the many and varied charities. There has so far been only one very small note of criticism of the Charity Commissioners' work as a whole. That was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that it took rather a long time to deal with questions of the sale of land. It is true to say that the Commission does take a long time in some matters, particularly when a scheme has to be drawn up, but the very fact that it has to take a long time has been a safeguard, and ensures that all interests and all interested parties have their points of view registered—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to make it completely clear that I do not in the least criticise the Charity Commissioners. On the contrary, I have the greatest admiration for their work. I think that they work admirably, despite the difficulties caused by great shortages of staff.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. That means, then, that in the debate so far there has been no criticism at all of the Charity Commission set-up. That is very gratifying, but, at the risk of being rather critical, if the Commission is going along very well as a concern, I cannot help asking my right hon. Friend, "Was your journey really necessary?"
We have heard a great deal about the Nathan Report, and I fully appreciate that the Government had to take into account the Report of a Committee of distinguished men, and that commitments may have been made in respect of that Report when it was under discussion in another place. Nevertheless, both my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman have stated that the work at present goes on very well.
Something has been said about the registration of all the charities. The hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly said that the Commissioners are a bit short of staff, and thought that the Commission would inevitably need more staff. I am told that that is definitely the case, and that the minimum cost of the additional staff would be about £10,000 a year. That is another £10,000 a year on the plate of the taxpayer.
Charity is the most important thing in the land. It is extremely important


that people who wish to give money, either during their lifetime or by means of their wills, should not be discouraged from doing so. Charity is often a vital need for the less fortunate members of the community as a whole, although, by legislation, we try to improve their lot. We do not want to do anything that will frighten off the person who is, or might be, charitably inclined to give or bequeath money to a good cause.
That brings me to a point that I do not think was touched on in the debate in another place. I am not a man of law, but I think that I am right in saying that by the First Schedule the Home Secretary, who will have Parliamentary guidance of the Charity Commission from the date of the enactment of this Measure, appoints a Chief Commissioner who, in cases of disagreement, will have a casting or, if need be, a second vote.
As I see it, that means that the Home Office really takes entire charge of the Charity Commission from now on. I hope that I am wrong, but if that is so, it brings all the charities inevitably into the sphere of a Ministry that must be political. The Charity Commission has, as a whole, kept out of politics for 108 years, and it would be a great tragedy if people were deterred from giving money to good causes by fear of politics entering into this sphere.
Then, again, there is a reference to local authorities and further discussions with them. I have great faith in the work of local authorities of all sorts and some of my family partake in the duties of local councillors in one way or another. But if one were signing a will and deciding whether a sum of money might be given to a worthy cause which had been one's lifelong interest, I wonder whether one would be encouraged to give an extra £25 if the local council was to see that it was registered forthwith and might have powers of discretion with the trustees appointed for that good cause. I hope that this matter will be cleared up.
I hope that the Bill does good for the cause of charity, but I hope, also, that before it becomes an Act it will be made quite clear that it will be the policy to exclude politics completely as far as possible, provided that there is some Parliamentary contact with the Commissioners and the House.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) in giving a general welcome to the Bill, but I make, in the main, the same kind of reservations as he does. I do not intend to detain the House very long and I do not imagine that hon. Members will want me or anyone else, after my hon. and learned Friend's analysis, to go in great detail into our objections to certain parts of the Measure. But I want to speak on behalf of the Nonconformist Churches, because they regard some of the possible working out of the Bill as being almost a denial of the claim which, for 300 years, they have made in the social and religious life of the country.
We object to uniformity. There was a time when there were various Acts on the Statute Book which excluded us from citizenship because we declined to accept the Act of 1662. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for having to make this point in front of him, because when he and I were meeting various religious and civic bodies during the campaign for the Education Act, 1944, it was generally left to me to explain to some of my Nonconformist brethren exactly what Nonconformity was and is.
To mention my own denomination, down to 1813 people were not allowed by law to be Unitarians. Indeed, one of the Measures with which this Bill is concerned arises from the fact that the House of Lords held that one could not leave an endowment to a body whose members were put outside the law in that way. We have a rather historic objection to being registered and to our funds being subject to examination. On 11th June I have to give an address on the 250th anniversary of a church of my denomination. It was built with one entrance and two exits so that when the justices of the peace came to see who was speaking and who was attending they could only get in one way, but the congregation could depart by two. That sounds very amusing in these days, but there were days when people met only in defiance of the law, and that historic tradition still remains.
I hope that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East asked for about the registration of


these causes and their inclusion in the register may be met, because the safeguards with regard to the way in which the trust is administered and its funds dealt with are ample and should satisfy the House after experience of 250 years or more during which we have maintained our independent position in the country.
One Measure which the Bill will repeal is the Nonconformist Chapels Act, 1844, which brought to an end a most bitter controversy, mainly within Nonconformity itself—because once one becomes a Nonconformist it is so easy to nonconform with the people one has just joined. I hold in my hand the presentation copy of the debates on what is here called the Dissenting Chapels Bill, which is the Measure to be repealed. The whole of the debates in both Houses are here recorded, the Division lists, and the petitions which were presented for and against the Bill. Let it be quite certain that no voluntary body will do such a thing with regard to either this Bill or the Bill with which I have been just recently associated with the Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department—the Betting and Gaming Bill. Not even the bookmakers will go to that expense in connection with that Measure.
The Nonconformist Chapels Act represented a solution to one of these difficulties about the right of property of voluntary Nonconformist bodies and it secured for my own denomination the title to several of its most historic meeting houses. The way in which it is to be repealed is rather curious. I see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has a copy of the Bill before him and he will see that in the third column of the Fifth Schedule there are words which are just the kind of thing that terrifies a layman when he starts reading this Measure.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West praised the Bill as one which a layman could understand and follow. I ask him to consider the lines in the third column to which I have referred, with the exception which they make and which seems to open up all the difficulties which, not the Solicitor-General, but the layman fears when he is trying to find out exactly what things mean.
Generally speaking, considerable promises have been made in another place about what will be done to the Measure in this House in connection with the various points with which the Nonconformist Churches are concerned. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say that an effort will be made to redeem those pledges in this House. But those who have read the debates in another place, while very grateful for the way in which their points were met by the Lord Chancellor, wish to make it quite plain that they expect some considerable concessions on the points which are still outstanding.
I hope that this will be possible, because there are very considerable misgivings about some of these points. After all, if we take the independent Churches, that is, those that have not any very strong central denominational organisation to control and help them, we find that the secretaries and treasurers of these Churches are very often people of no great educational qualifications and background, and the compilation of the annual returns and forms that might be required, I understand, as the Bill stands at present, could present them with very great difficulties. A good many people might find themselves in various forms of jeopardy, not from any malice, but from their inability to cope in the precise way demanded by the Commissioners with the requirements as to such statements.
The Baptist and Congregational Churches have taken a very notable part in the negotiations, and I wish, on behalf of the other Nonconformist bodies, to pay a special tribute to the zeal they have displayed. I understand that there was to be a meeting at the Home Office between them and certain people in the Home Office who are interested in the promotion of this Measure, but that it has not yet taken place. I think that it is a pity that it should have been postponed. I hope that when this matter comes up for consideration there will be no doubt on the part of the Secretary of State and those who advise him as to the importance which the nonconforming Churches of this country attach to the issues that are raised by the Bill.
I join my plea with that of my hon. and learned Friend that the course


which he asks to be followed shall be followed in this matter, and from my knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and of his zeal to promote religious unity—not uniformity, but religious unity—in the country, I hope that he will see that the points which I have ventured to put forward receive the most sympathetic consideration in any such discussions as I have just mentioned.

5.43 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I join in welcoming this Measure. As has been said, it is not purely a technical and administrative matter but one which involves some large changes of policy—and of policy which goes to the root of our social ideas.
When we have changes in ideas, they are always important, even though their immediate implications cannot very easily be foreseen. Our educational, our medical and our social institutions were largely originated and developed as a result of charitable activities. These institutions and the responsibility for their maintenance has been very largely taken over by the taxpayer, and it is, of course, that fact which creates a need for this Bill. It is because of that fact that we have this large and somewhat complex Bill today.
That fact seems to me to pose two general questions, one of which has already been canvassed in the debate. Are the charitable funds in existence, those given in the past, well used, and what is the best way to see to their use in the future? There is a second question, which is this: should people now be encouraged to give their money by charitable gifts, in view of the fact that so many of these activities have been taken over by the State? My answer to that second question is definitely in the affirmative.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) spoke of the need for pioneering new fields of social endeavour, and I thought that a very happy phrase, but there is another aspect of it. I can remember an old lady who had always given 10 per cent. of her gross income for charitable purposes throughout her life. With the coming of war and heavy

increases of taxation, though she was a wealthy old lady, it became impossible for her to continue this custom, and this upset her a very great deal. I mention that only because I think it important that people should recognise that they have a personal responsibility in these matters. It is this sense of personal responsibility, not only for our immediate relatives but for the welfare of the community as a whole, which has made our social services in this country better, I believe, than those of any other country in the world. If we do anything to cut at the root of that, we shall be doing very grave damage.
The two questions are fairly closely related—the use of charitable funds and the provision of new funds—because unless funds which have been given in the past are seen not only to be well used but to be used for the purposes which their founders intended, we shall not find new funds forthcoming. A nice balance is therefore needed between, on the one hand, maintaining the original purposes for which funds were given and, on the other hand, promoting the most effective use to which funds which may have been given many years ago can be put at the present time.
I think that, on the whole, the balance which this Bill puts before the House is not very far wrong. It seems to me that it deals with the matter in about the right way. I regard Clause 1 and the First Schedule to the Bill—that is to say, the provisions which deal with the new constitution of the Charity Commission—as being much the most important part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in the course of his remarks, referred to Clause 1 (3), and I agree that the most important words are those which refer to the functions of the Commissioners as being—
promoting the effective use of charitable resources by encouraging the development of better methods of administration, by giving charity trustees information or advice on any matter affecting the charity and by investigating and checking abuses.
I do not think that the purpose of this Bill could have been more happily expressed.
In my opinion, and it is not shared by some of my hon. Friends here, the existing constitution of the Charity Commission is not altogether satisfactory. In saying that, I do not wish in any way


whatsoever to criticise the present members of the Commission. If the two archangels held these offices, they would not be able to make a good job of it with the Commission as at present constituted.
The Department is exceedingly small. I suspect that it is one of the smallest in the country. What is more, it is unconnected with any other Department of State. The two Commissioners have to be barristers. At present they cannot even be solicitors. In the ordinary way they enter the Department fairly early in their lives, without necessarily having had very wide administrative or business experience. They stay in that Department for the rest of their lives and leave at retiring age on a pension. It is obvious, first, that in such a Department there is no movement; it is a dead end, and when someone gets in there he cannot get out. Secondly, there is literally no promotion worth talking about. Whatever the functions of such a body, I do not believe that one with that constitution could work satisfactorily.
The Bill proposes a third Commissioner, and it also proposes that this third Commissioner can be a layman and that all three Commissioners shall be appointed by the Home Secretary of the day. When these appointments are made—they will not be made in a revolutionary way but from time to time, the first immediately on the Bill coming into effect and the others later—I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the third Commissioner is a layman. I also hope that he will pursue a policy of ensuring that this Department is no longer a dead end. In other words, I hope that he will take people out of the Home Office and appoint them to serve on this body for a certain length of time, possibly a long time, but not on the basis that they have to stay there until they either die or retire. I believe that if my right hon. Friend follows such a policy, he will have exactly the body which will do the job we want the new Commissioners to do.
I notice a paragraph in the First Schedule which has not been referred to in the debate. Paragraph 1 (5) gives the Home Secretary power to appoint two additional Commissioners to meet

temporary needs. I do not know how the word "temporary" will be interpreted, but I imagine that there might easily be a considerable temporary need at an early stage of the operation of the new scheme. For my own part, I will promise not to worry my right hon. Friend to bring any such temporary appointment to an end prematurely.
May I say a word about Clause 13, which deals with changes in the cy-pres. I am sure it is right to encourage the modification of the objects of a charitable trust in appropriate circumstances. I know that there are charity trustees who want to go too far. I have often come across trustees of a charity who think that their ideas are much better than those of the founder, and they have to be restrained. On the other hand, I know, too, that there are many charity trustees, perhaps the majority, whose only idea is complete stagnation. They never think in terms of doing the best with their money and their attitude to their trust is completely perfunctory. Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say "the majority", but there is a considerable number of such trustees, and something must be done about them.
I am glad that the Bill permits a change in the objects of charitable trusts in a wider range of cases than is at present permissible. That is good in itself, but it is not enough to deal with the situation. I will trouble the House with a personal instance because one can deal only in personal instances, since few people have means of knowing cases other than those which come to them in a personal way.
I was once connected with a charity. Its objects were somewhat narrow and its permitted method of attaining those objects was narrower still. It was doing a good job but it was exceedingly inefficient in doing so, and I was shocked by the amount of money which we were spending for what we were achieving. I am certain that if the founder had been alive he would have been equally shocked. This was a long time ago and therefore has no reference to present individuals.
I went to the Charity Commission and I had more cold water poured over me in a short period in my life than I had ever had before. I was not deterred by that, and I went to see the then Junior


Chancery Counsel to the Treasury, generally known as the Attorney's devil, a learned gentleman who subsequently became a very distinguished judge in another place. He poured even more cold water over me. I was not deterred by this. I was satisfied that we were not doing our job and I advised my co-trustees that we should go ahead, notwithstanding all this cold water. We got out a scheme and put it before the court, which approved it.
It was an excellent scheme, not altogether unlike that suggested in Clause 12. We are now working it in combination with the London County Council, to the satisfaction of everybody. In that case we had substantial funds and one of the trustees happened to be a Chancery barrister, so we were able to do something. I am certain that there are many small charities in this country, and possibly some larger ones, too, where there is a great deal of waste simply because what should be done is not done.
I welcome the enlarged powers given by Clause 13, but I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, who is to reply to the debate, what is intended by subsection (5), which declares that—
a trust for charitable purposes places a trustee under a duty …
in effect, to obtain a scheme of cy-pres in an appropriate case. That is a difficult duty. It is not always easy for the court to decide, and the trustee may be in some difficulty. Supposing he does not take action, what is the sanction? I would imagine that could possibly be a breach of trust. If that is so, the sanction will be severe, because it would mean that the trustees might become liable for all the income they had misspent in the meantime. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to clarify that point.
Turning to the register, on the whole I am glad that the Government have decided to have a register of charities. I appreciate what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East about religious establishments, and it may well be that they should be treated in a different way from other charities. I am sure, however, that more knowledge of charities and their funds is required. As I have said, I think there is a consider-

able waste of money which is held on charitable trusts but is not applied for any very useful purpose.
I appreciate, too, that purely ephemeral charities should not be included in the register, but I have difficulty in understanding what the Government intend to except from the register under paragraph (4, c) of Clause 4, which states:
any charity not having any permanent endowment, nor any income from property amounting to more than fifteen pounds a year, nor the use and occupation of any land;
These seem to me to be three separate classes of charity. The first is any charity not having any permanent endowment whatever; the second is any charity not having any income from property amounting to more than £15 a year; and the third is any charity not having the use or occupation of any land.
It seems to me that those are to be read disjunctively, but it is not at all clear how they are to be read. If they are to be read conjunctively they will hardly be any exception. If they are to be read disjunctively, there is a conflict between the first and the second. In any event, I should like to know the meaning of "use and occupation … of land" in this context. Does it mean mere right or permission to use a hall, or what does it mean? I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will explain this.
The other provisions of the Bill seem to me to be excellent and, indeed, overdue. The appointment of an Official Trustee for Charities must be quite un-controversial and most useful. Nobody will quarrel with the abolition of mortmain—at least, I hope not—and the power to establish common investment schemes seems to me to be common sense and quite unobjectionable. This is a good Bill which proceeds on the right lines. It will require a good deal of scrutiny in Committee. In the meantime, however, I hope that it will receive a unanimous Second Reading.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Harold Neal: It is with trepidation that I participate in a debate which might be regarded as the special preserve of those right hop. and hon. Members who are skilled in the study and practice of the law. Indeed, if I


were making a speech merely for the record, I would select a less complicated subject and one that was more familiar to the rôle I customarily occupy in the House.
My intervention, however, must not be regarded as a serious challenge to anything contained in the admirable speech of the Home Secretary or even that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who, in their lucid examination of the case, said everything that could be said about the intentions of the Bill.
My only point of disagreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East arose in the course of his tribute to the Parliamentary draftsmen. Whenever these fallible gentlemen produce what my hon. and learned Friend described as a layman's dream, although it will increase the degree of unemployment in the legal profession, I cheer more loudly than either my hon. and learned Friend or his colleagues. That day, however, has not yet arrived. I join my hon. and learned Friend in welcoming the Bill and accepting that it is a tidying-up Measure which is long overdue. I am sure that it will find general approval on both sides of the House.
A singular advantage of our Parliamentary democracy is that there is always somebody awaiting the opportunity and the appropriate moment to modernise ancient enactments and to suggest such alterations as will make them capable of twentieth century application. The Bill is an outstanding instance of this. Much of its content is obviously necessary and desirable—for instance, registration. This will tend to stop abuses which have been known to exist. The local authority index will provide for public consumption information which in the past has been exceedingly difficult to obtain.
Without detaining the House unnecessarily, however, I wish to come to my main point, which concerns the inadequacy of Clause 13. I do this in no mood of self-assurance. I address my remarks particularly to the Solicitor-General in the shape of an inquiry, and I trust that what I am about to say will be accepted in the spirit in which it is said.
In the presence of experts, I hesitate to give my definition of cy-pres, especially in view of the varying opinions that were expressed on the subject by the legal luminaries of another place. To the layman, however, it seems that the doctrine of cy-pres in the Bill may be adequate in cases where there is mutual agreement to alter the objects of a charity. I have in mind cases in which this is not, perhaps, possible.
My only difference with the Home Secretary arises from his statement that there will be no clearing-up of little charities. In many parts of the country, there are ancient charities whose disbursements are so rare and so trivial as to be ineffective. I know of charities which are entitled by their trust to distribute two yards of flannel, one florin's worth of flour and a few shillings at Christmas. These might better be amalgamated to make disbursements to the recipients more in keeping with modern money values. I hope that Clause 13 is not too tightly drawn to prevent this being accomplished.
I wish to draw attention especially to the case of colliery disaster funds, in which cases the object of charity might advantageously be altered. When a colliery disaster occurs, considerable public sympathy is always aroused and huge funds are raised as a result of the spontaneous generosity of the public. From time to time, exaggerated calculations have been made about the amounts of funds lying idle that were originally raised for this purpose.
I have never subscribed to that view. From time to time, however, the Ministry of Power has collected information on the subject and has issued a White Paper giving details. The last White Paper, Cmd. 8101, was issued by the Ministry of Fuel and Power in December, 1950. At that date, the total number of colliery disaster funds was 64. Twelve had been exhausted since the last inquiry, 24 expected no surplus, 11 had no information about surplus and five had surpluses realised and no dependants. At that date, according to the White Paper, the total of the balances was £912,613 and the total number of dependants was only 1,376. The total surpluses realised were £24,155.
The National Union of Mineworkers, upon whose national executive I happen


to serve, is specially interested in the fate of these funds. It will be remembered that the coal industry Social Welfare Organisation, which was set up under the miners' welfare Acts, is the responsible charity which deals with general charity for the coal industry as a whole. It is representative of both sides of the industry. This organisation has under its care 500 paraplegics who are the victims of industrial accidents, men who spend their complete existence in invalid wheelchairs. In addition, there are 6,000 permanently disabled men connected with the coal industry, representing 1 per cent. of the total labour force.
It would be an act of grace and mercy if these unexpended funds, when the intentions of their trusts had been realised, could be utilised and devoted to the national charity—the coal industry Social Welfare Organisation—which has the care of these victims of the industry. This would give widespread pleasure to all who are devoted to the care of these victims. If, later, the Solicitor-General consents to a widening of Clause 13 to make these funds available to lighten the lot of these men who are so bravely facing a hopeless future, it would give general pleasure throughout our coalfields.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: We all listened with great pleasure to the moving plea of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal). I, too, would like to see Clause 13—if, indeed, it needs widening—widened to take account of his plea. If it needs widening, it should be reconsidered possibly on the lines suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), namely, to permit of advertisement to those who subscribe asking whether they object to the diversion of the funds to the sort of purposes that the hon. and learned Member has in mind.
The hon. Member for Bolsover is one of the few laymen who have taken part in this debate. I am surprised that none of them has objected to the Bill on the ground that it omits a definition of "charity". The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East put forward clearly the professional view on this matter. We rather like our old lace scattered about the old reports and statutes. Indeed, wiser heads than mine, or even

that of the hon. and learned Member, were hotly opposed in another place to any attempt at a definition.
To a certain extent, however, it is a confession of failure on the part of lawyers and of draftsmen that in a Bill that seeks to sweep up so much of the law relating to charity we cannot even consolidate a definition which otherwise has to be searched for through many books and many leaves of many authorities. It may be that we could do so, or, possibly, it is better to leave it alone. I am surprised, however, that during this debate the lawyers have been allowed to get away with that neglect.
Otherwise, the Bill has been welcomed as striking the right balance between the need to protect and to inform the public about what is going on with charities and charitable funds but, in the same way, not to harass trustees or voluntary workers or, indeed, potential donors. This is a difficult balance to strike. If we harass the trustees too much—I wonder whether the obligations to furnish accounts might not in many cases be too much of a harassment—it may be found that the great voluntary effort which we have all praised so much this afternoon may begin to crack up because trustees simply will not undertake these burdensome obligations. I am keen that not only charitable trustees but private trustees should continue.
The other day, I had a little brush with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about trustees' costs. I wonder whether it is generally realised what a lot of work trustees do and how often their only reward is to find themselves in the witness box. Mr. Agustine Birrell, in a series of rather brilliant lectures to the Council of Legal Education about seventy years ago, described a trustee who found himself in the witness box in these terms. He was talking of a gentleman from an agricultural locality:
There he stands ignorant for certain, pigheaded very likely, quarrelsome possibly, but honest, palpably honest and perspiring. He is charged with losses occasioned by his disregard of the strict language of a will he never understood, or for not having properly controlled the actions of his co-trustee, the principal attorney of his market town. It may be necessary to ruin such a man, to sell his horses and his cows, his gig and his carts, and to drive him from his own home, but it cannot be done without a qualm.


We hope that nowadays provisions for relieving trustees are sufficiently well-known and well-used to prevent that from happening. But at the same time there is no doubt that this Bill puts on the trustees of charities some new and very onerous duties. That is why I say that I think the Bill went to the limit in striking a balance between the harassing of trustees and the protection of the public. I am quite sure, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison), that if we were to impose on them another harassment, namely, more compulsory powers to local authorities in this matter, that would prove to be the straw which broke the camel's back, and I congratulate the Government on resisting that temptation.
The Charity Commissioners have been given new and very onerous duties. I think their powers of advice are widened by the terms of Clause 23. In another place, the Lord Chancellor said he hoped that those powers would be much used. So do I, and so I think they will be. Certainly, now that it has been brought to my attention, in future when anyone asks me for advice on a voluntary basis for some local charity I shall be able to say, "But my dear fellow, the Charity Commissioners are the people to do that work." That will be a great easing of my spirit.
Not only advice but auditing powers, disciplinary powers and, above all, the register will, I believe, result in far more work than is indicated by the Bill. I am surprised, because I think it a little misleading, that one reads in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on page iv:
No reliable estimate at this stage can be made of the additional cost under Clause 43 of implementing the provisions of the Bill, but it is not thought likely to be large.
If we are to have a register which is to be of any use and in which we may have to register hundreds of thousands of charities—because that is the sort of figure which is being cast round—it seems to me bound to be an expensive operation. If we are to provide the Commissioners with their staff for undertaking all these new duties, auditing, disciplinary schemes, scheme-making powers and so on, I have no doubt that, while the expense will not be large in national terms, it will be infinitely larger than anything we have thought of in the past

as being the correct amount of public money to spend in charity work. I make this slight criticism, because it seems to me to be misleading if we think that we shall be able to get away with this cheaply.
I have mentioned the disciplinary powers, and I think it quite right, although new, that trustees can be removed by the Charity Commissioners not only for misconduct but also for incompetence. Indeed, I would go a little further. I am not sure why in Clause 19 (2) the power in that instance is restricted to a conviction of felony.
The Commissioners may also remove a charity trustee by order made of their own motion … where the trustee has been convicted of felony, or is a bankrupt or a corporation in liquidation, or is incapable of acting by reason of mental disorder …
etc. Why only a felony? A great many crimes in the modern calendar of very great seriousness are only misdemeanours, and it seems to me that this is importing an ancient distinction which is really not right.

Mr. Philip Bell: I rarely find myself in disagreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), but the Clause 19 provisions involve two trials, one in secret by the Commissioners in which they may remove a trustee for mismanagement or breach of trust. That seems to me a most unfair provision.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If we think that the Charity Commissioners should have the power at all to remove trustees, and I do think that, it seems to me quite wrong to swallow the felony and strain at the gnat of misdemeanour—or whatever the right metaphor may be.
I would agree with my hon. and learned Friend to this extent, that from my reading of the Bill it seems to me that there is no appeal as of right, which strikes me as being a fundamental omission. Clause 17 (11) states
Provided that no appeal shall be brought under this subsection except with a certificate of the Commissioners that it is a proper case of an appeal or with the leave of one of the judges of the High Court attached to the Chancery Division.
That, coupled with Clause 19 (5), seems to me to indicate that when a trustee is removed in these circumstances by the Commissioners he has no appeal as of right.

Mr. Philip Bell: The words are,
Where the Commissioners are satisfied".
It is not that the person in fact misconducted himself or mismanaged, but that the Commissioners think he did. There may be no appeal from that; in fact there is no appeal at all.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am obliged for the increased support, although I am not absolutely convinced that I am right, or that my hon. and learned Friend is right.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): In case there should be a misunderstanding about this, I think that both my hon. and learned Friends should look at Clause 19 (7).

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my hon. and learned Friend mean by that intervention that there is an appeal as of right?

The Solicitor-General: Yes.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am obliged for that assurance. In that case, a great deal of my objection to that power goes. There must be an appeal as of right in this question, and if that is so, I am obliged for the assurance.
I know that there is only a limited amount of time for this debate and that other hon. Members are anxious to speak. I will conclude, therefore, on this note. To my mind, it is vital that in a modern State the community should at least know what voluntary organisations are doing and that at least it should have the power to check abuses. Of all the great voluntary organisations in this country, most have now imposed upon them a code of conduct with powers of auditing, powers of compulsory registration and equivalent powers of investigation in cases of suspected misconduct. That is true of companies, of corporations, friendly societies and building societies. It is now to be true of charities.
Now there is only one form of voluntary organisation of importance which is immune from this process, and that is the trade union. I ask hon. Members to consider whether that exceptional position can continue in the face of the quite proper provisions that this House insists on making for all the other forms of great voluntary organisations in the country.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) into the legal aspects of the Bill. I am grateful that he mentioned what was said a few years ago about the responsibilities of trustees. I must declare my interest as a trustee of a Welsh Baptist chapel and I now wonder whether I should have been persuaded to undertake that responsibility.
I welcome the speeches which have been made both from the Government Front Bench and from the Opposition Front Bench. During the Easter Recess I did a considerable amount of research work into the reports of charities from 1818 until 1837. I found that in one of the counties I represent, Breconshire, there are 133 charities. In Radnorshire there are 126, and 75 of these are concerned with poor people. Having made these researches and listened to the debate today, and having read the Nathan Report and the reports of speeches in another place, I have reached some conclusions. One is that there appears to be a lack of knowledge of local charities, both parochial and ecclesiastical, in quite a number of rural parishes. There is a great deal of apathy and indifference among young people about some of these old charities. As has been said, some of the charities are completely out of date and difficult to administer.
There is a great deal of indifference among some trustees about submitting annual reports and among parish councils and parish meetings about insisting on these statements. There is a great deal of indifference also about appointing people to fill vacancies among the true trustees. I found that when appointments are made some of the people appointed have nothing to do with the locality but the appointment is considered a great honour by someone outside. I do not approve of that kind of thing.
I welcome the Bill, and I am glad that the machinery for administering the charity law is being brought up to date. The law is being simplified, although I confess that I do not understand many of the Clauses. I wish to pay tribute to the Charity Commissioners. Ever since


I have been a Member of this House I have had many personal dealings with them. I cannot accept the criticism that there are long delays over correspondence. I found that that applies to the Ministry of Education's schemes more than to anything else. In fact, I consider that the Commissioners are doing a good job, and I am glad that they are to continue with their good work. I join in the plea for a greater number of Commissioners, and I would go further and ask that there should be one authority to deal with all the schemes. I also welcome the idea of a central register of charities.
I am concerned about the working funds of chapels, and, for example, the funds of women's sewing guilds and young people's guilds. I do not want the Commissioners to suggest that people should be baptised in the river instead of inside a building because of the extra cost. I do not want that kind of interference by the Charity Commissioners, and I wish to ensure that chapels which receive a small income from endowments are not affected by the provisions in this Bill.
Some chapels in my constituency have been taken over by the Service Departments and have been compensated. They still maintain graveyards. Will their funds come under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners? I should like a reply from the learned Solicitor-General, although I do not expect it today. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can tell me whether the reference to the Church of England in Clause 44 relates only to England, or does it include Wales, as was the case in the old legislation? What is the position? What is the position, under the Welsh Church Acts of 1914, of the money invested in county councils for the administration of charitable purposes? That is very important.
I welcome the local registration referred to in Clauses 10 and 11. I wonder why those schemes which have an annual income of less than £15 are not to be placed on the central register. Will they be expected to register locally? If they have to be registered locally, I hope that the provisions will be watertight. Since I came to this House I have had experience of the Radnorshire County Council retaining the income of

a local charity for sixty years for educational purposes whereas the wording of the endowment was for Presteigne Grammar School. After good work by Mr. W. H. Howse and my Question in the House in 1954, that school received more than £100, which the education authority had collared for sixty years.
I want to find out whether, after these charities are registered locally, county councils will be so keen to look after the money. I ask the Home Office and the Charity Commissioners to persuade all charities outside the definition of £15 to be registered locally. In that way local people will have the opportunity to learn what is in these charities. Will the Commissioners send the list to local councils or will this be a purely local option? If the names are not registered locally, then I take it that they will not be entitled to claim Income Tax relief. There is, therefore, some inducement.
If that is so, a progressive county council would be only too glad to publish a list of all the schemes, so that everyone would know about them. I have a copy of a scheme of about twenty charities in a town in my constituency. The author was Mr. W. H. Howse. and the people have benefited a great deal because of its publication. About eighteen to twenty charities have been listed. Some of them are now united under one trust, which is a great advantage, and it is bringing in an income of £400 a year. That was done on the initiative of one person, and if local authorities could do similar work they would be doing a great deal to help.
No obligation is placed on the Commissioners to ask anyone to publish details of charities. They have said so to a constituent of mine. That is wrong. Most ancient charities in Wales were written on tablets inside or outside the church. If our forefathers thought fit to publish these charities on tablets, surely, in our modern society, we could do something to publish them. This should at least be suggested by the Home Office and the Charity Commissioners.
I welcome the reforms and the changes which can be made in the purposes of charities. In my researches I have learned some very interesting things. In Battle parish, outside Brecon, in 1573 there was a charity which provided for the payment of twelve pence towards


glazing the great window of the chapel. That is wholly out of date. In Llandefalle in 1748, £5 annually was provided for payment to forty poor parishioners after divine service. At one period, so the Commissioners report, this was distributed in a public house. Naturally the Charity Commissioners commanded that it should go back to the divine service and be redistributed there. Those responsible came back and said that they would give it out in flannel and calico.
It is interesting to note that that charity asked that forty poor persons should receive the money. I doubt whether there are four poor persons in that parish. Due to good legislation by both Governments, they are mostly farmers and do very well in the locality.
In Llanelly parish in Breconshire there was an endowment for the preaching of ten sermons in Welsh. Nearly all the people in that parish are English-speaking, and it is ridiculous to expect that to be carried out. In Llanbedr, another parish, in 1728 it was requested that poor girls under the age of fifteen should be given a Bible, Prayer Book and a book called "The Whole Duty of Man." It was never given. I doubt whether anyone knows that book today. Nowadays youngsters well know what the facts of life are; they know far more than I knew at their age.
In the neighbouring county of Radnor there are eight charities requiring sermons to be delivered. There is an instruction to the trustees that if a parson refuses to lecture or preach on certain subjects mentioned, he is to forfeit his 10s. fee and the poor are to get it. I suggest that the poor could choose difficult subjects and thus get more money. There are other quaint suggestions. One provided for a sum to be paid to "decayed housekeepers." I have never heard that description before.
The Home Office and the Charity Commissioners should consider what can be done. They are to give encouragement to the merging of local charities which are not the responsibility of Churches. I welcome that. I should like this merging to be confined to given areas or to functions within charities. That can be done. In that way there would be economy and the funds could be invested, as is provided in the Bill, for very good purposes.
The liaison in such a united charity would avoid a great deal of duplication. If there are parochial charities as well as ecclesiastical charities, there should be liaison between them so that they do not duplicate payments. The Charity Commissioners ought to ensure good liaison between them.
What action will the Commissioners take if a review is asked for and the trustees are being criticised? The trustees themselves may be the cause of the inquiry. They may not be administering the charity properly. If the local authority asks for a review, is it likely that the trustees will allow it? That provision in the Bill ought to be strengthened. There should be an obligation for inquiry and review.
The House will welcome the changes regarding donors' wishes. The new power for the Commissioners to safeguard charity property is excellent. I can quote instances of very low rents being derived from very good land in Presteigne, while for worse land about four or five miles away 30s. an acre more in rent is being received by the endowment. This is because the rents have not been reviewed. That is the kind of thing against which the charities should be safeguarded by the Commissioners.
I welcome the provision in Clause 31 that there should be insistence on the obligation to keep accounts. Apart from parish councils, who else can inspect the accounts? The Charity Commissioners have been courteous enough to provide me with statements of accounts when asked. It should not be left to a Member of Parliament to have to ask for these accounts. Provision should be made that those accounts are made available.
I also welcome the proposal in respect of audits. I do so because I came across an instance in which there was an endowment, the total income from which was £167, and the clerk was paid £12 10s. to administer the endowment. I was told that part of the £12 10s. was afterwards paid to a very deserving organisation. I was wondering why the salaries of or payments to some of these clerks are deliberately inflated in order to obtain funds in another way. That is a very drastic statement to make, but


I make it in the hope that the Charity Commissioners will watch the funds of trusts.
I have no objection to auditors being appointed under the Bill, but in rural parishes how are auditors to be found? If chapels, churches or similar organisations do not have to get these very learned and educated people to audit accounts, why should charities? Friendly Societies, sports organisations and trade unions do this work with local people.
I am glad to have the opportunity to welcome the Bill. I am certain that it will give a great deal of encouragement to those of us interested in local charities. My researches during the Easter Recess have given me a great deal of knowledge of social conditions of many years ago. It is for us, as custodians of charities, to ensure that there are safeguards which can be properly administered in future.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: Coming in in my accustomed place as almost last man, I shall not be expected to make many runs but just take a few swipes. A good deal has been adequately said about the Bill, and I will not weary the House by repeating it. I was very gratified to hear about trusts for religious establishments being given special consideration and possibly not being registered.
That is a difficult point. It is the full turn of the wheel. Without going into religious history, perhaps I might say that some people believe that one of the causes of the Reformation was that there was not proper supervision of the property in the hands of Churches which was supposed to be allocated to poor people. It is not without interest to observe that from both sides of the House and from all denominations it has been suggested that in these days the religious organisations can be trusted to administer their affairs without the necessity of registration.
I have some points to make which might be properly reserved for the Committee stage and which were taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). I am not sure that a fund set up, as it could be, for a particular type of poor person, although it should be

open to inspection by the persons who were the objects of the charity, should be open to the inspection of the world in general. There is a necessity to limit publicity.
The particular point that I have in mind concerns Clause 19. I have never understood the overlapping of the jurisdiction between the Charity Commissioners and the courts of law. On the whole, being a lawyer, I prefer justice to be administered, for a reasonable fee, in the law courts. I do not like ordinary tribunals which sit under their own procedure, quietly and inoffensively, no doubt, but very powerfully. I should have to be convinced that this serious matter should be dealt with otherwise than in the courts.
Clause 19 is dangerous and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give it careful attention. A matter of principle is concerned here. Woolly-headed and perhaps not altogether successful trustees may find under Clause 19 that, unknown to themselves, they have been under scrutiny, and that, without knowing the result of the scrutiny, they have been removed by the Commissioners. Before a man's position is attacked he must know what is wrong, what he is charged with and for what he is responsible. Clause 19 does not provide for that. What it states is:
Where the Commissioners are satisfied as the result of an inquiry instituted by them under section six of this Act…
Clause 6 provides for a roving inquiry It states:
The Commissioners may … institute inquiries with regard to charities …
They can take evidence on oath. Everyone concerned may think that the inquiry is into something to do with the charity. But then the trustee may suddenly find, after the inquiry is over, not that the Commissioners have considered whether this ought to be done, whether that ought not to be done or whether a certain thing should be improved, but that it was he who was on trial, not the Charity. Thereafter, Clause 19 comes into operation.
Clause 19 (1, a) refers to "misconduct or mismanagement". What constitutes misconduct or mismanagement is in the discretion of the Commissioners. It is true, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out, that there can be an appeal of sorts. He referred to subsection (7),


which makes reference to subsections (10) and (11) of the Bill. All is well until we look back to Clause 17 and discover that there is not an absolute right of appeal at all. There is only a right of appeal provided the Charity Commissioners against whom one is appealing agree, or, alternatively, the court agrees to the appeal. In practice, it is difficult to go to a court and ask for leave to appeal without telling the whole story and trying to get the appeal on its feet.
The difficulty does not end there. There has always been the difficulty in the past—the Liversedge case was an example—of appealing against the exercise of a discretionary power. It seems to me that there is a discretion in the Commissioners to say, "We thought, rightly or wrongly, on the evidence before us that there has been misconduct and mismanagement." It was in the Commissioners' discretion to decide that and there can only be appeal on whether the particular remedy which they suggested should or should not be implemented.
It does not even stop there. There has been the trial of an unhappy trustee who did not know that it was a trial but suddenly found that he was being tried. He finds that he is removed as trustee, and this so encourages everyone concerned that they say, "We had better go to the Chancery Court on a breach of trust". I think that the removal of a trustee is very serious and should only be done through the courts. The trustee should be answerable only to the courts.
I join in welcoming the Bill and the general principle of it. There are some points which I think that it is better should be reserved for comment in Committee. I find difficulty in understanding why information should be communicated not only to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but to any Government Department. I cannot understand why everybody should be told all about the accounts concerned and the information collected, although I can understand why the Commissioners and local authorities, for rating purposes, should know. These perhaps are Committee points, but they are, nevertheless, substantial.
I would say one other thing to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East. He talked about cy-pres and gave as an example the Gillmgham disaster. It was found that more money

had been subscribed to that fund than was required and the question arose of what was to be done with the surplus money. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that this should be advertised and that if anyone wanted his money back and did not apply for it he should not have it back. The trouble would be that some people would not remember whether they had made a subscription or not, or to what fund they had given it. I think that that would be rather an ineffective way of doing it.
I appreciate the principle behind the suggestion. But surely the proper way of proceeding would be for the trustees to say that they want a fund to look after the people concerned in the disaster and that if there is any surplus it should be left to the promoters to expend it on local charity. When there is a surplus of money and the people from whom it came cannot be identified, it does not go back to them. It would be wrong to put an advertisement in a newspaper saying, "You can have it back if you want it". It is a question of bona vacantia.
In making any Amendments or suggestions for this purpose, we have to anticipate what a man himself would do. I think that any man who goes to a bazaar or a whist drive in aid of an emergency fund would say, if it were suggested that there might be more money subscribed than was needed, "Give it to some other charity." I think that we should work on that basis and that any funds subscribed by unidentified subscribers should go to another charity. This could be done with the consent of the Charity Commissioners. I do not believe in any of this advertising stuff. I think that the man who goes to an ordinary whist drive never expects to see his half-crown back, whether enough money is subscribed or not. I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that something of that sort might be squeezed into the Bill because it is always an awkward business to pay back money, under whatever head, when it is not claimed.
Subject to these points, I think that there are great possibilities in the Bill. I hope that my slog to leg on Clause 19 will not be caught the first time, but will be considered carefully by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: Those responsible for drafing this Bill have undoubtedly performed a very formidable task. They and all those who have helped to bring the Bill to its present stage are to be congratulated on their work. If I have any doubts to express or any criticisms to make, I do not wish them to be regarded as in any way belittling the value of the work of those who have attempted to consolidate a very complex body of law.
In introducing the Bill in another place, the Lord Chancellor referred to a Motion moved there as long ago as 1949, by Viscount Samuel, in which he called attention to the need for encouragement of voluntary action to promote social progress. He also referred to the book written by Lord Beveridge to which the Home Secretary has referred today, and more than one reference has been made today to the valuable work of Lord Nathan.
I believe that there will always be opportunities for voluntary effort—there will always be scope for charity in its widest sense, but circumstances change. The very meaning of the word "charity" charges. Similarly, I think that the main functions of voluntary bodies tend to be modified with the passage of time. This has been very noticeable over the last hundred years. I would say that a hundred years ago charity primarily meant providing financial aid for those who were poor and in need, whereas today the trend is towards personal service.
I should like to pay tribute to the many voluntary social service bodies in this country. They are not, and will not be, superseded by the State. Their services are complementary to anything that the State may do. Very often these voluntary bodies are pioneers. It is, therefore, important that we should not define charity too narrowly and that the creation of new charities should not be restricted by too limited a definition. I intended to make some observations on the subject of the definition of charity, but because of the lack of time I will refrain from doing so, except to say that, like many lawyers very much more distinguished than myself, I failed in my attempt to provide a satisfactory definition of charity.
One must, therefore, rely on case law coupled with the Acts already on the Statute Book. There is this consolidation, that case law tends to reflect the changes in the climate of opinion and that sometimes there is less time-lag in case law, which is gradually built up, than in changes brought about by amendments to Statutes.
I ask whether the Bill will create a new rigidity. Is there a danger that under this process of registration the extension of charitable objects and the introduction of new charities will be restricted? I am anxious to be assured on that point. I should also like to know how this new procedure will work and, in particular, the relationship between the Inland Revenue and the Charity Commissioners.
Presumably, when charities are registered there will be some consultation between the Charity Commissioners and the Inland Revenue. Will the Inland Revenue be consulted on every charity which requests registration, or will that only apply to new charities? Will this lead to a rigidity perhaps due to the rather legalistic point of view of the Charity Commissioners themselves, or to the influence of Inland Revenue? Will that lead to delays and will the staff be adequate?
These are some of the matters that concern me a little when perusing the Bill. Much may depend on the exemptions and exceptions. I think that under that heading I can put what I want to say more simply in the form of a few questions. First, what is the permanent endowment referred to in Clause 4 (4, c)? I know that there is a definition in Clause 45, which refers back to Clause 44, but perhaps my legal mind is not sufficiently clear about it.
I am the trustee of two charities, one with very wide objects and the other with the power to give aid to elderly people. In both cases we have power to resort to capital. The first charity was set up by an order of the court. It has been running for twenty years and is likely to last for at least another twenty years, but ultimately the capital may be used up, because there is power for it to be used up. Does it follow that this is not a permanent endowment? Secondly, will the draft regulations be made known before the Bill completes its


Committee stage? That is very important, especially in respect of denominational charities. Thirdly, will the regulations relate both to registration and the furnishing of accounts as well as to dealings with property?
An important question of principle is involved. Nonconformists have very strong views on this matter, which they have expressed to me. I know that the Government are endeavouring to be helpful, but the question arises whether a chapel and various denominational charities should be registered. I would prefer to see this question dealt with in the Bill rather than by regulations, but if the exemptions are to be made by way of regulations it is important that we should see the draft regulations before the Bill has passed through the House. The regulations which will exempt various denominational bodies will be in the nature of Clauses, as one would expect to find them in a Bill. If we do not see the regulations until the Bill has passed through the House we shall be in the position of being asked to approve a Bill before we have seen all its Clauses.
I have to mention these details because we have not seen the regulations and we shall not have an opportunity of raising this matter in Committee unless we do see them, or the point can be incorporated in the Bill. I am aware of the undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor, which has been reaffirmed by the Home Secretary. In connection with the sale of chapel property without the necessity of obtaining the consent of the Charity Commissioners, reference was made to church premises and manses, and I should like to know whether that definition will include Sunday schools and caretakers' houses which do not adjoin the chapel premises.
There are many questions of that nature which come to one's mind when one examines the statement made by the Lord Chancellor in another place. For example, will the exemption apply to registration and to the statement of accounts as well as to relief from the need for obtaining the consent of the Charity Commission to sell? I assume that if exemption is granted it will be in respect of all three matters.
Will a distinction be made between the larger denominations, which are able to

negotiate with the Home Secretary, and smaller bodies that have not negotiated and may be in a less favourable position? Finally, are the Government satisfied that there will not be undue delay when consent has to be obtained from the Charity Commission?
I should like to know how the procedure will work out. I have had twenty years' experience in dealing with the Charity Commission on behalf of various charities, including a denominational charity, and I have always found its officials extremely polite, courteous and helpful. It has always been well worth while to see them whenever any difficulty has arisen. But there have undoubtedly been delays, and sometimes exasperation has resulted. Some of the worst delays occurred after the war, when the Charity Commission was trying to catch up with its work, but they still occur, and are sometimes exasperating.
In some cases sales fall through. The prospective purchaser may go to his solicitor and be told that under this procedure he must sign a contract subject to the consent of the Charity Commission. The Commission will then advertise for higher terms, which may take a long time. It may result in the charity getting a better price in the end, but it may also result in the prospective purchaser saying, "I am not going to have anything to do with that kind of procedure" and refusing to sign the contract. The only remedy is to ensure that these applications for consent to sell are dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
I could say much more on the Bill, because I have had some experience of working with the Commissioners on behalf of various charities, but I have detained the House sufficiently long and I would merely end by saying that the Bill deserves a Second Reading.

7.6 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I want to draw attention to a comparatively narrow point. During the course of the debate misgivings have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) with regard to the powers to be given to local authorities. I have a point to raise in connection with that matter, although I approach it from a rather different point of view.
Clause 10 refers to the index of local charities to be made by local authorities, and Clause 11 refers to a limited right of reviewing local charities. The local authorities so empowered at present are county councils, county borough councils and non-county boroughs, and I wish to put in a plea for the inclusion of urban district councils.
I do so for two reasons. First, in the last sixty years parity of functions discharged by non-county boroughs and urban district councils has been maintained, with two exceptions. The first is the Ancient Monuments Act, 1913, but in that case an undertaking has been given by the Minister of Works that when there is a possibility of legislation on the matter this point will be considered, and the other is the road traffic legislation. In 1956, the discrepancy was observed too late, and it was not possible to do anything under the 1960 Measure because that was a consolidating Measure.
But there is another reason, which is rather more important. The Urban District Councils' Association recently sent out a questionnaire to all the authorities coming under its care, and from the replies received from 256 of those authorities it was found that there are no less than 64 within whose districts one or more charities exist, the constitution of the Governing body of which either consists wholly of the members of the council or empowers the council to appoint or nominate the whole of its membership to constitute the governing body. In those circumstances, it seems unreasonable to exclude urban district councils from the provisions of Clauses 10, 11 and 12, when non-county boroughs are included.
When this matter was brought up in another place the Minister who was in charge of the Bill gave an undertaking that it would be looked at again. I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to confirm that that will be done. I do not want at this stage to delay the House any longer on the merits of the case, but I hope that I have said enough to show that there is a good case for this point being made in connection with the urban district councils.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I compliment the Home Secretary on the lucid and intelligent way in which he introduced the Bill, and also on his brevity. His

brevity was an example to all Front Bench and back bench speakers, and I welcome the manner in which he introduced the Bill. He did it without wasting much time and without wasting any words.
I was glad to hear the Home Secretary say that the Bill does not seek to destroy small local charities. That is very important, particularly for the small charities prevailing in the mining villages. I have had the opportunity of administering a charity for over fifty years. I know that if I had any trouble under the Bill I should have great difficulty in getting out of it, but the Home Secretary's statement has assured me that that will not be the case, and I am delighted to learn that that is so.
The Bill goes a long way towards meeting the modern needs of our rapidly growing and changing society. That is what the Home Secretary said in his introductory remarks, but when I look through the Fifth and Sixth Schedules I find that the change has not been so very rapid because it goes back many years and suddenly, by the committees and other things that come into our Parliamentary scheme, it has come forth with great velocity since 1939.
The Bill is not perfect and nobody has as yet professed that it is. Perhaps I may quote George Bernard Shaw, who said:
When you find a perfect man you will find a perfect nuisance.
When we find a perfect Bill, we will find a perfect nuisance, but the Bill is one to which we can make some alterations in Committee. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said, the Bill can be improved, and we shall have an opportunity of putting down Amendments which in our opinion will improve the Bill and make it meet with the approval of ordinary folk outside.
I want to follow the line adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal). I entered the debate with some trepidation because 90 per cent. of the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken are members of the legal profession, and I hesitate to enter into the realm of the legal luminaries. However, I want to put a point of view which for some time has troubled people in the mining industry.
I refer now to the many colliery accident funds which have been collected following terrible disasters in the mines. I live in the midst of areas in which there have been disasters, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I live in the little village in which I was born, and north, east, south and west of my village there have been terrible explosions and calamities, and it is only natural that in the mining villages there have been outbursts of sympathy and large sums of money have been gathered for the relief of the distress caused by mining explosions.
Those funds have not been exhausted. There are still surpluses. So much so that within the last few years there has been a growing desire in the mining villages and among the mining fraternity for something to be done with those surpluses. According to the White Paper, Cmd. 8101, which was issued in December, 1950, one fund goes back to 1863, and there is still a surplus lying dormant which ought to be utilised for the purpose of a worthy cause in the coalfields. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary and the learned Solicitor-General will be prepared to accept an Amendment from this side of the House to get that remedied.
I have been looking through the records of what has been done during the last few years. I find that the desire expressed on behalf of people anxious to utilise the surpluses has been expressed in White Papers. No subject has given rise to so many White Papers as the funds which have accumulated after explosions. There have been four in recent years and there was one last year. We can, therefore, conclude that the demand for something to be done with the surplus funds which have accumulated after the needs of the dependants have been met has been such as to warrant the preparation of five White Papers. There was Command Paper No. 359 in the Session of 1893-94. There was Command Paper No. 155 in July, 1925. There was Command Paper No. 5167 in April, 1936, and Command Paper No. 8101 issued in December, 1950, ten years ago, from which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover quoted.
Those White Papers represent considerable evidence of the desire of the people living in the mining areas for

something to be done with the funds that were left after meeting the needs of the dependants of those lost in mining disasters. I mention these White Papers because I want to get them on record.
In the debate which took place in another place there was the White Paper to which I have referred, No. 9538, issued on 13th May last year. That, again, was an indication of the desire that these surpluses should be used for some purpose.
Let us examine the problem from the point of view of the National Union of Mineworkers. At meetings of their executive committees and lodges they have expressed a desire for something to be done with the surpluses which have accumulated. At its annual conference, in 1929, a special resolution was passed that representation be made to the appropriate authority for a centralisation of all surplus explosion funds. That was thirty-one years ago, yet we are still as far off as ever from achieving the object we want.
This debate, therefore, gives us an opportunity to ventilate the desire which has been expressed over the years that these funds should be put to some good use. They cannot, of course, be used for the benefit of the people for whom they were raised, because those people are dead, but they could be used, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, to help our permanently injured miners, of whom there are more than 6,000. They can be used for the 500 or 600 paraplegic miners now condemned to a life in a wheel chair.
I mention those two causes to show that this is not a trivial thing, but a very important matter. The surpluses, amounting now to over £300,000, that have accumulated since 1863 would enable us to do a tremendous amount of good work for the mining fraternity.
We have a number of other worthy causes that are crying out for help, but if we could use the surpluses from the manifestations of swift sympathy when there has been an explosion in the mine we could do much to help these men who have been crippled in the pit or disabled by industrial disease. When we consider the Bill in Committee, I hope that the Home Secretary will not throw overboard the Amendments which will be tabled by us to this end, because we


now have an opportunity to realise a desire that has been with us over a long period.
There has not been a White Paper dealing with these surpluses since that of 1950, so that we do not know what the exact sum now is, but the total surpluses remaining in mining disaster funds in 1950 amounted to £912,000.
In passing, I would ask the Home Office to enlist the assistance of the Ministry of Power, because that Department is charged with the responsibility of announcing the surpluses through the medium of a White Paper. It would be a good thing to have a more up-to-date White Paper which would provide us with a clearer picture. I am told that 19 funds have gone out of commission since 1936—they are no longer "live" funds, but there are still 64 "live" funds in the coal fields. The National Union of Mineworkers has asked us to do all that we can to ensure that the Bill deals with this vexed question of surpluses, so that they may be devoted to the benefit not of the dependants of the victims of colliery disasters, but of those men who, in their daily round and common task, have suffered very serious accidents, and of their dependants.
The money could be used for that worthy cause, and I hope that the Home Secretary will respond to our not unreasonable request that the scope of the Bill shall be broadened. We now have an opportunity, not often afforded to us, to be charitable to those who have met with misfortune by way of injury or industrial disease. I ask the Government to give an undertaking that they will be prepared at least so to broaden the Bill—I can assure them that ours will be a reasonable Amendment—as to embrace the unfortunate men who are now asking for something to be done for them. I hope that the Government will respond to my appeal.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has made a human and a humane contribution to what has otherwise been a legalistic debate. I hope that I shall not return too much to the legalistic side but if I do, it will not be through lack of appreciation of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
While my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was telling the House, in admirable words, of the intentions behind the Bill, I rather wondered whether I had brought the right Measure with me, because the intentions he expressed seemed to be so far from the actual wording of the Bill. He said, for example, that the fundamental object was to keep the Commissioners independent of politics.
As I understand their present position, the Commissioners are appointed by Royal Warrant under the hand of the Sovereign, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister for life si bene gesserunt, that is, subject to good behaviour. They are in the position of judges. They are appointed in a judicial capacity. They have no political master. Their Vote comes direct from the Treasury. That is their present position, and I should have thought that it was a position that anyone should hold who has to carry out judicial functions.
We see their new position when we refer to paragraph 1 (3) of the First Schedule, which says that
… the chief commissioner and the other commissioners shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, and shall be deemed for all purposes to be employed in the civil service of the Crown.
Therefore, in future, instead of holding office directly by Royal Warrant during good behaviour, they become civil servants, with the Home Secretary as their political master, and I assume that their Vote will be included in the Home Office Vote.
That means that their independent judicial status is to be destroyed, yet their judicial functions are to remain. When we turn to Clause 17 we see that the judicial functions are well prefaced by the words that
… the Commissioners may by order exercise the same jurisdiction and powers as are exercisable by the High Court in charity proceedings …
The subsection then proceeds to set out certain judicial functions, including such matters as
… establishing a scheme … appointing, discharging or removing a charity trustee or trustee for a charity, or removing an officer or servant … vesting or transferring property,…
and so on.
Clause 19 gives them powers to remove trustees and to appoint other persons as trustees; to invest property; to direct banks and other persons to transfer securities, and the like. Many judicial functions are set out, and there is no appeal except on a certificate of the Commissioners themselves, or by leave of the court—and as one knows, in practice, that form of appeal is extremely difficult to exercise. There is no real right of appeal. One has to proceed almost by way of another case, as it were, to get an order of a High Court granting leave to appeal.
I quite appreciate that the whole purpose of the Bill is to tidy up the position of charities, to produce efficiency in charitable trusts, and to ensure their proper administration, but, for that purpose, is it essential to destroy the present judicial status of the Commissioners? One could carry out all the other provisions of the Bill without taking that particular step, which is a serious breach of a principle that is almost sacrosanct in our constitution—that a person exercising judicial functions shall be independent of political control, shall not be a civil servant appointed or dismissed by the Home Secretary, relying on the Home Office Vote for his salary, and so on.
Perhaps I may give an example of what I fear. Take the endowment fund of a teaching hospital. If some future Home Secretary were to decide, as a political decision, that the endowment fund of a teaching hospital should be used in aid of National Health funds, and that it was tidier to have all the funds under one umbrella, by Clause 17 (6) all he has to do is to call before him his civil servants, the Charity Commissioners, and say to them, "Ask me for a reference under Clause 17 (6), a reference to yourselves, to produce a scheme of this sort." The result might well be the virtual confiscation of the endowment fund of the hospital.
I do not think that this sort of "Big Brother" stuff is exaggerated. Indeed, there is also in the Bill what I would call "Little Brother" stuff, as a result of local authority powers to review—

The Solicitor-General: May I ask my hon. Friend to make quite plain whether he thinks that the High Court would fall in with those political manœuvres?

Mr. Page: With all respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot see how the High Court could interfere. Under Clause 17 (6) the Charity Commissioners have power to set out a scheme if they are satisfied that the charity trustees ought in the interests of the charity to have applied for a scheme. If the Commissioners are satisfied that the trustees ought to do something, who is the High Court to say that the Commissioners are not satisfied?
It is not a question of whether a scheme is good, bad or indifferent. An appeal can go to the High Court only on the grounds that the Commissioners have not satisfied themselves that a scheme ought to have been asked for. I stand to be corrected by my hon. and learned Friend, but that is how I read subsection (6).
I was about to refer to the local authority reviews, because I see further danger there. Again, I appreciate that a local authority would often like to tidy up the small charities in its area that are not being run efficiently. But suppose that a local authority has an old people's home of its own, and there is another one run under private charity, how very much tidier to run them both from the town hall—the old people's services nicely and neatly administered.
So the local authority decides to review the old people's welfare services in its area and, as a result, makes a recommendation to the Charity Commissioners. If a future Home Secretary were so minded, he would see that his Charity Commissioners—his civil servants— approved such a scheme.
If that is a possibility, is it not all the more important that the final decision should be a judicial one and that the Charity Commissioners should remain free from control by a political master? There is no necessity for the position of the Charity Commissioners to be altered in order to get all the other benefits of the Bill.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to look at this subject again with a view to seeing whether he can leave the Charity Commissioners in a judicial capacity— not as civil servants of the Home Office, but free from the Home Office to make decisions over and above any political


decision Under the Bill political decisions are possible, and it is quite within the powers of the Bill for a Minister to oblige the Charity Commissioners in future to make decisions which are political, when they should be in a judicial capacity making judicial decisions.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The whole House will agree that we have had a most valuable debate, covering a very wide field. Like every other speaker, I very much welcome the introduction of the Bill by the Home Secretary, subject to reservations on a few points of detail, some of which I hope to have an opportunity to mention, although on the whole it will be more useful if, instead of using time on Second Reading by dealing with Committee points, I indicate my general approach to the problems dealt with in the Bill.
I should like, first, as so many other speakers have done, to pay my tribute to Lord Nathan and his colleagues for having produced such a masterly Report, which I found both admirably written and a mine of valuable information. I should like to pay tribute, too, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and others have done, to the admirable way in which the Bill is drafted. It could not have been an easy subject to tackle, because the existing law on charities, both the Statute law and the case law, is a veritable jungle. Much of it is unintelligible, much of it is out of date and a great deal is a dead letter.
I have no doubt, therefore, that the Government were right to adopt the suggestion of the Nathan Committee, to make a clean sweep of all the existing legislation on the subject and to intro-duct a brand-new Bill. It is high time that that was done. Although, as the Home Secretary pointed out, the concept of charity is very ancient in our history, in the last century or so there have been such changes in the whole structure of our society as to make a review of the content and structure of charitable legislation very necessary to accord with modern conditions.
Two outstanding changes have occurred since the famous Statute of Charitable Uses was introduced in the reign of Elizabeth I. The most notable change has been brought about in the last fifty

years or so by the gradual growth of what is now generally referred to as the Welfare State. This to a large extent has rendered obsolete causes for which in the past a great many charitable trusts were endowed.
It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that the recent activities of the State in the sphere of social welfare have in any way removed the necessity for persons who are charitably and benevolently disposed to fill the very considerable gaps which are left by State action.
Reference has been made to Lord Beveridge's book, but it is worth while to remind the House of the passage quoted in the Nathan Committee's Report, in which Lord Beveridge said:
In a totalitarian society all action outside the citizen's home, and it may be much that goes on there, is directed and controlled by the State. By contrast, vigour and abundance of Voluntary Action outside one's home, individually and in association with other citizens, for bettering one's own life and that of one's fellows, are the distinguishing marks of a free society.
I hope that that will continue to be the case in our country.
Although the State has rendered largely unnecessary what was done in previous centuries by Charitable Trusts for the relief of poverty, the provision of health and hospital services, and the relief of the aged, one other object of charitable endowment, namely the advancement of religion, has not had, and is not likely to have, any direct assistance from the State. It will therefore always be likely to remain a deserving and active candidate for charitable endowments and voluntary support. Moreover, any of us having association with the activities of voluntary societies, whether in localities or centrally, know that there is still a great deal of fruitful work to be done in many social fields by voluntary societies throughout the country.
One of the valuable features of the Bill is that for the first time statutory recognition is given to the conception of co-operation between the work of local authorities and that of voluntary charitable organisations. For that, and for other reasons, I welcome those parts of the Bill providing for the institution of a register. In the past one of the difficulties has been to ascertain exactly what charities existed. For example, I


have no precise knowledge of the charities existing in my own borough of Islington. I know of some which do valuable work, but I have no exhaustive list of existing charities in the Borough, nor is there one at the town hall. I know that there are some centuries-old charities in Islington which are still applied for purposes which have become archaic. There is, for example, one charity founded some two hundred years ago for the purpose of the maintenance and upkeep of the highways in the borough. The town clerk regularly receives £200 or £300 a year from this source, which now, of course, merely goes in relief of the rates.
It is inconceivable that that kind of application by the trustees of the income year after year carries out either the spirit or the intention of the donor of the charity instituted two hundred years ago. I am therefore convinced that the introduction in the Bill of the provisions widening the scope of the cy-pres doctrine is most valuable and most necessary. I hope the widest use will be made of it. Up and down the country there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of charities in which the trustees, after perhaps paying themselves some remuneration and incurring some administrative expenses, devote the income from the charity merely in relief of the ratepayer or the taxpayer. In so doing, they are not relieving the poorer sections of the community. They are relieving the wealthier sections of the community. It is a travesty to think that these operations should still continue, because they cannot by any stretch of the imagination carry out the intention of the donor.
I am not sure—we can examine this in Committee—whether the provisions extending the cy-pres doctrine, or, to put it more technically, extending the conditions which must exist before the court or the Commissioners can apply the cy-pres doctrine, go as far as the recommendations of the Nathan Committee. If they do not, I hope that Amendments will be introduced to ensure that they go as far as possible.
Here I want to support the eloquent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and others, urging that opportunity should be taken in this Bill to introduce new

Clauses for the purpose of validating trusts the object of which has failed. It is not enough to extend the cy-pres doctrine, as the Bill does. There is an overwhelming case for seizing this opportunity—because we may not have another opportunity to deal with this legislation for a long time—to deal with numerous funds collected for some specific purposes, such as the Gillingham disaster a few years ago and the colliery disasters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince referred. As a result of those collections, about £1 million, subscribed by numerous people for the relief of a particular charity, is found to be no longer necessary for that specific purpose, but it cannot be applied to any other charitable purpose unless we have legislation for that purpose.
The Government should accept a new provision in the Bill laying down that, where funds have been subscribed for some charitable purpose, and that purpose has failed or been satisfied, it should be assumed that the donors had a general charitable intention. Then, if an excess of contributions results after the specific requirements of the disaster have been fulfilled, the surplus revenue should be applied for some other charitable purpose approved by the Commissioners.
It may well be that theoretically the donors of such charities have a right to ask for their subscriptions back, but that is much more a theoretical than a practical point. My belief is that most people who make a subscription to charity for one purpose or another are anxious that their subscription should be devoted to some charitable object. If it is thought necessary to meet the technical point, it could be met, first, by an advertisement enabling donors to apply, and, secondly, by a provision in an Act of Parliament that if, following an advertisement, donors have not applied after a specific interval of time, they shall be presumed to have intended that their subscriptions should be non-returnable to them and should be devoted to another charitable object to be approved by the Commissioners.
I should like to say a few words about the scope of the register. I am convinced of its necessity, because without it we shall not have knowledge of the existence of charities. It seems to me a great flaw and a great gap in our social


arrangements that people who are interested in knowing what charities exist in their localities at the moment have no means of such knowledge.
The other significant change that has occurred over the last century is the increased privilege enjoyed by all charities under our system of taxation. It is very important to bear that in mind, because charities are privileged bodies in more ways than one. They have always enjoyed freedom from the rule against perpetuities; and the benefit of being declared a charity even though the terms of their creation were not particularly precise, and they have always had certain modified rights of changing their objects under the cy-pres doctrine. But, in addition, during recent years of high taxation, all charities have had the great privilege resulting from the fact that the whole of their investments are free of Income Tax. I suppose that it is this feature of modern legislation which justifies and entitles the State to take a greater interest in the way in which charities are administered.
Although there is no need to remind the Solicitor-General, the House might be reminded that there have been from time to time criticism as to whether it is right that charities should continue to enjoy this freedom from taxation. As the Solicitor-General will remember, this was one of the subjects considered by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, which reported in June, 1955, after the Nathan Committee had reported, and which devoted several pages of its final Report to considering whether charities should continue to have the benefit of tax exemption.
The Report quoted a statement made by the Board of Inland Revenue at that time estimating that the present annual cost of this exemption amounts to some £35 million of tax. It is therefore relevant in considering the law on charities to remember that to quite a substantial extent the Revenue contributes to the income of all existing charities. It is curious to observe—I read this in a newspaper the other day—that practically the only people now who ever complain of a reduction in Income Tax are the trustees of charities, because the immediate effect of any such reduction is to reduce the income of charities. But that is a small price to pay for the inestimable benefit which they receive.
It is worth while remembering that there was a Minority Report of two members of the Commission against the retention of this abstention from taxation which charities enjoy. The two dissentient members of the Commission doubted, for example, whether, when the standard rate of Income Tax was 10s. in the £, it was right that the State should be an equal partner in a trust established to promote annual chess tournaments with prizes open to young men resident in the City of Portsmouth.
I am in favour of the existing exemption, and I raise this matter because I am disturbed by the Clause in the Bill which gives the Commissioners of Inland Revenue certain statutory rights in connection with the designation of charity. As I understand it, Clause 9 has to be read in conjunction with Clauses 4 and 5. It is to be conclusively presumed in future that any institution which is put on the register is a charity. It is also provided that interested persons, including the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, can apply to the Charity Commissioners for the removal of a charity from the register.
Hitherto, certainly in the case of most new charities, care has always been taken to ascertain from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue whether a particular institution would or would not be regarded as a charity. I hope that we shall be told whether it is intended that all existing charities which have had their status as a charity recognised up to date by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be registered by the Charity Commissioners without any further interference by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or whether it is contemplated that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will again have to vet the status of every charity which now has to apply for registration under Clause 4.
It certainly would be alarming if it were thought that because of this new legislation trustees of a charity could be involved in legislation at the instance of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I hope that some settled practice will result whereby there will be no risk of either existing charities or new charities having to become involved in contentious legislation with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue about their designation as a charity.
The other great advantage of the register, of course, is that it will enable local authorities to know which charities exist in their localities. When they have this information I hope that there will be abundant scope for the preparation of new schemes, so that a number of charities whose objects have today become obsolete are regrouped and used for modern up-to-date beneficial purposes.
Next, I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to give us a little more definite information about the charities which are to be exempt from registration. This matter was not left in a very clear or definite state as a result of the debates in another place. The first point to observe is that all religious charities are in a position different from that of other charities because in the case of any religious endowment, whether for the Church of England, any Nonconformist body or any religious or quasi-religious body, there are already in existence beneficiaries, locally and very often centrally, who have an interest in seeing that the funds of that particular charity are properly administered. There is, therefore, not the same necessity for investigation and review of religious charities as there is of other charities, where there are no designated beneficiaries to protest if their rights are disregarded.
I am quite convinced from my own knowledge that the provisions in the Bill, wide as I think they are—and we may have to see whether in some cases they are not too wide—are necessary to deal with the relatively small number of cases in which charitable trustees abuse their powers. I am quite prepared to believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases the trustees of charitable trusts are perfectly honest, but I have in my own experience come across trusts which could with advantage be investigated, if only to ensure a more efficient administration of their affairs.
The next question which we have to consider is whether, to use the words of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), the Bill holds a right balance between two objectives which we all have in mind. First of all, there is the necessity of doing nothing to interfere with

the legitimate freedom and independence of trustees, coupled with which is the natural desire to encourage those charitably inclined to continue to make charitable endowments. That objective has to be balanced with the other objective which I recognise, namely, that of ensuring an improvement in the administration of a number of trusts up and down the country which are capable of being better managed than they are today.
To secure these twin objectives—and I am not at the moment convinced that the provisions of the Bill are ideally designed to achieve them—we have to consider both Clause 1, which gives certain powers to the Home Secretary—and I leave for further consideration the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) as to whether the Home Secretary is the most appropriate Minister for this purpose— and the provision in the First Schedule for the constitution of the Commission.
My own fear is that the Commission, constituted as it is under the Bill and subject to the direction of the Home Secretary, with three Commissioners, all civil servants, occupying rather a dead-end position in the Civil Service, will be too bureaucratic. I foresee, particularly if they are to have a largely increased staff, a danger of bureaucratic —not political—interference by the Commissioners with the freedom, judgment and independence which I think trustees ought to have. Therefore, for my part, I should have much preferred the kind of Commission which the Nathan Committee recommended.
I am not, of course, inclined to the suggestion that it should be a Commission of nine part-time Commissioners. For myself, I would ask the Government to consider whether it might not be more appropriate that there should be added to the three whole-time Civil Service Commissioners one or two independent part-time Commissioners drawn from fields in which they have had a wider experience, not only of the world and of commerce, but preferably also of the administration of charities. It would not be difficult to find, from the large number of people who are engaged in administering some of the well-known large trusts in this country, one or two people who


are well equipped to augment this Commission, and who could, I should have thought, be persuaded to give part-time services.
In this connection, I hope that the Solicitor-General, when he replies, will clarify what is intended in the Bill with regard to the political responsibility of the Home Secretary. As I read it, by making the Home Secretary responsible, Members of Parliament will in future— I am not at the moment saying whether I think this is a good thing or a bad thing, because there are arguments both ways—be able to put down Questions on the Order Paper to the Home Secretary with regard to the administration of all charities affected by the Bill. The Home Secretary, as I understand it, will be able to be questioned whether he has given directions to the Commissioners about this and that, and why the Commissioners, who, after all, are appointed by him and are subject to his direction, have or have not investigated a particular charity, or have not registered some other body which hon. Members think ought to qualify for registration.
I therefore want first to make sure that this is also the Government's conception, so that if it is, we can examine what we want. First of all, may we be clear as to whether it is the Government's conception that, as a result of this Bill, in future the whole field of charitable administration by the Commission under the direction of the Home Secretary will become subject to Parliamentary Questions? I should have thought that it would, because even under our present system we have the experience of Questions being put to the Parliamentary Member of the existing Commission, and the administrative provisions envisaged in this Bill go a great deal further than that.
I do not want to deal with points which can better be raised in Committee, but I should like to endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about Clause 19. As I read Clause 19, it confers judicial powers of a penal, or at any rate quasi-penal, nature on the Commissioners, enabling them to impose pretty drastic sanctions against trustees for misconduct and mismanagement. I think that it is right that they should have these powers, and

I think that the mere existence of these powers will have a salutary and deterrent effect on trustees who in the past may have been remiss in the discharge of their duties. I am bound to say, however, that I am shocked to find that there is no appeal as of right from these Commissioners, who are civil servants under the political direction of the Home Secretary, to any body. That seems to me to be contrary to the conception of natural justice to which we are accustomed. As the Bill stands, trustees have only a right of appeal if they obtain leave either from the Commissioners or from a Chancery Judge.
No one would want to put into the Bill provisions which might encourage trustees to spend trust funds in litigation. That would not be a desirable thing to do, but, nevertheless, I think that trustees ought not to be exposed to the risk of being condemned for at any rate quasi-criminal conduct without a right of appeal. If there were any danger of trustees using the right of appeal frivolously, I should have thought that it was a matter in which the courts could adequately restrain by using their wide discretion as to costs.
After making those general observations, I should like to conclude by saying that it seems to me that, desirable as this Bill is, it still leaves somewhat vague and uncertain the method in which the Commission will in the future exercise its powers of investigation. I think that the success of this Bill will depend very much upon the wisdom and restraint exercised by the Commissioners, and I assume that it will be their objective always to continue to obtain the co-operation of trustees, whose primary duty it will still be to administer the trusts under their charge.

8.10 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I am very grateful indeed, as is my right hon. Friend, for the reception which has been given to this Bill and for the very valuable debate we have had upon it.
Hon. and learned Members who are particularly versed in this branch of the law have contributed to our debate, also a number of solicitors who have had constant professional duties to perform in connection with trusts. One contribution was made by


a former Home Secretary, and another by a former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was in his previous career a Chancery lawyer. There was another contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison), who was earlier a parliamentary Charity Commissioner, and finally by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who spoke with personal knowledge of the problems of the miners' welfare funds.
So it has been an exceptionally valuable and, if I may say so without impertinence, well-informed debate. If I do not advert to all the points of detail which have been raised, it will not imply that we shall not consider them carefully and with an open mind before the Committee stage of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has pointed out, the Bill is important, not only because it comes as a consolidation of the law after 100 years or so, but because it is in the new and unprecedented situation whereby many of the traditional objects of charity have been largely overtaken by the provision of statutory welfare services. In those circumstances, feeling as we do that nevertheless charities have still a vital part to play in the community, we have the duty of trying to reconcile the part they have still to play along with the provision of the statutory welfare services.
This Bill does four things. In the first place it completely overhauls, for the first time in our history, the statute law regarding charities. It modernises the legal machinery and re-organises the Charity Commission to deal with the new situation to which I have referred. Secondly, by establishing a central register, it enables anybody concerned with public welfare to know what charities exist. Thirdly, it declares the basis for co-operation with the local services to which I have referred. Fourthly, it makes it easier for a charity to adapt itself to the rapidly changing situations of today by relaxing the conditions which have to be satisfied before a trust can be altered—in other words, the application of the cy-près doctrine.
The first general matter that has been raised is (the constitution of the Commis-

sion itself. I want to make plain at the very outset of my speech that my right hon. Friend has no intention of any political interference with the Charity Commission. The members of the Charity Commission will not be civil servants of the Home Office, in the words of one hon. Member. They will be civil servants, but in their day by day work they are independent of the Secretary of State. They are just as independent as the members of the Civil Service Commission, who, after all, are also civil servants. We are used in our constitution to giving powers to a body as to which, although a Minister may be answerable in Parliament for their efficiency, he denies himself the power to interfere in their day by day decisions. The discretion that is given to members of the Commission is theirs and not that of the Secretary of State.
Therefore it follows, in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East, that although the Home Secretary will be answerable for the Commissioners in this House by Parliamentary Question and Answer and other means, he will be responsible only for their efficiency. He will not be responsible for their decisions in relation to particular charities, because it is their discretion and not his. In so far as they are answerable for the exercise of their discretion, they are answerable to the courts, because an appeal lies from their decisions to the courts and not to the Home Secretary.
Again we are used to that kind of relationship. It exists already to a great extent in a branch of the Civil Service which is far more administrative than the proposed Commissioners. By a self-denying ordinance the House of Commons does not probe Treasury Ministers in relation to the tax affairs of any individual in the community. This is an a fortiori case, because the Commissioners will be exercising a judicial discretion for which they are answerable to the courts.
Then, as to the actual constitution of the Commission, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked whether it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to appoint a layman as the third Commissioner. It is his intention so to do. I believe that when we have the two legal members and one lay member we shall have the kind of


Commission which is capable of fulfilling the tasks that this Bill lays upon it. The job of the Commissioners, as I have said, is partly judicial, but it is also partly administrative, and the Commissioners will also partly act in an advisory capacity. In other words, the qualities that will be looked for are not only judicial, but those we find in a family solicitor, able to give advice to the trustees in relation to all the manifold problems thrown up in the exercise of the trust.
I do not think that there is a need to re-orientate the Commissioners so that they are primarily a business body. After all, the Charity Commissioners themselves are already responsible for the handling of very large funds. I am told that the Official Trustee, who will be superseded by the Custodian Trustee, already has £140 million of funds for which he is responsible. Therefore, the Charity Commissioners are already used to the handling of large sums of money. Hon. Members will have noticed that in Clause 21 (6) the Custodian Trustee has power to call on the advice of investment experts.
In addition, the fact that there are only three trustees does not preclude the employment of staff with whatever qualifications and experience is necessary. Therefore I say, particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury and Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who expressed some disquiet as to whether the Commissioners would be mere agents of the Home Office, that both by their constitution and by the intention of my right hon. Friend I believe that those misgivings are not justified nor will they be in any way translated into reality.

Mr. J. Morrison: If an hon. Member has a problem and has to take it to a Minister, it is bound to be more political than if he takes it to a back bencher, as at present.

The Solicitor-General: If my hon. Friend is referring to the Parliamentary Charity Commissioners, my own feeling is that there is still the avenue of approach through a Minister. The Minister will, however, to a certain extent, be acting as a postbox in relation to the Charity Commissioners in that it is their discretion which is in question and not a Ministerial discretion.
Again, it is very much like the attitude of a Treasury Minister when a question of the taxation of an individual is concerned. Although the Treasury Minister is approachable by any hon. Member, he would not dream of giving directions to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to how they should exercise their duties in relation to any individual. This is an even stronger case, because it is very largely a judicial discretion which is given to the Charity Commissioners.
The hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East asked why we had decided upon the Home Secretary and not the Lord Chancellor. The main reason was that we felt that when it was a question of answerability for the efficiency of a public Department it was better to have the Home Secretary, who is in this House, rather than the Lord Chancellor in another place. In any case, the Home Secretary seems constitutionally the right person because, as Secretary of State, he is in a sense the residuary legatee of all Government functions. I hope that I have dealt with all the points concerning the Commission.
The only hon. Member who raised the question of an advisory body was the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, who expressed no particular love for such a body. It is a matter on which my right hon. Friend still has an open mind, but it does not appear from today's debate that there is any strong feeling that there should be an advisory committee to assist the Commission. It is, however, a matter on which we have not closed our minds.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is to say, concerning the composition of the Commission?

The Solicitor-General: It is probably a subject to which we should return again when we have examined the composition of the Commission more fully in Committee, which, I imagine, is what the hon. and learned Member has in mind.
The next main subject, which has not stirred any strong feeling today, is the question of a statutory definition of charity. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that it is to some


extent a confession or failure on the part of lawyers if we fail to get a definition. On the other hand, it seemed to me that the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East were conclusive. In the absence of a heavensent definition which we can see on the Order Paper and examine critically, my feeling is that the whole thing is better left to case law, as at present, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Islington, East. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen should turn out to be the channel of the divine inspiration, that would be both appropriate and welcome.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), who has expressed his apologies that he cannot still be here, thought that registration might effect a new rigidity in the definition. I did not follow how that should be so. It will still be open to the courts to say what is a charity, and it will merely follow from that that the particular body will then be placed on the register. The fact that various charities are registered and appear on the register should give no more rigidity to the law than the existing body of precedent.
One of the main topics which has been discussed is the question of registration. The proposal for registration of charities has been universally welcomed. It was a central feature of the Nathan Committee's proposals, and it will be extremely valuable when it comes to setting charities into the context of the statutory welfare services that are now performed by the State and by local authorities.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East asked what information would appear on the register. The register that we envisage will be a card index, on which will appear the particulars of the functions of a trust including, unless they are voluminous, the subsidiary functions to which the hon. and learned Member expressly referred. It will also include the approximate annual income of the trust and a reference to any land that it holds. There will be a cross-reference to the deed of trust, which will be filed elsewhere in the premises of the Charity Commissioners and available for inspection.
I was asked, particularly by the hon. and learned Member and by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, about the exemptions and whether the exemption under Clause 4 (4) would extend to the obligation to render an annual return. The answer is that it will. The hon. and learned Member, although he was alone in this, was anxious to see the exemptions expressed in the Bill rather than in regulations. Our own feeling is that that would be quite inappropriate.
There may be many of these bodies and one wants to particularise them. Undoubtedly, in some cases, we will be able to signify a whole class of charities —far example, charities whose trust is set out in a model deed of one class or another, like so many of the trusts for Scouts and Girl Guides. There will, however, be many other cases where one will want to refer to the particular charity or to a certain part of it. Since a great deal of this is for the guidance of conveyancers and, therefore, one will want to go into fair detail, we think it far better that the exemptions should be set out in regulations.
It follows from that, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, that so far as I can see the House will not have an opportunity of seeing the draft regulations before the Bill is considered in Committee.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I appreciate the desirability of the provision for regulations for dealing with marginal cases which would be suitable for enumeration by regulation rather than in the Bill. My concern was about including in the Bill national organisations such as the Boy Scouts, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and religious organisations, about which undertakings for further consideration have been given. These organisations fall within certain classifications. Their exclusion would depend upon the decision of principle and, therefore, they are eminently suitable for inclusion in the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: With respect, I do not think it is as simple as that. I repeat our undertaking to consider the question and the scope of their exemption with all the bodies enumerated by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
In answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I can say that we shall consider sympathetically the position of the nonconformist churches and, indeed, all the religious bodies. But, even then, there is the position that trustees may change and trust deeds may alter. In that case, it seems to be preferable that there shall be a power to specify the exempt trusts by regulation rather than in the Bill itself, where we should be required to make amendment by Act of Parliament. No doubt that is a matter which we can discuss further during the Committee stage, but as at present advised it seems to me preferable that we should deal with the matter by regulation.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister deal with the important point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) regarding the interpretation of Clause 4 (4, c) and whether these words are to be read conjunctively or disjunctively?

The Solicitor-General: I think it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. I was coming to that point.
In relation to the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields regarding the Nonconformists Chapels Act, 1844, I think there is a conclusive answer which perhaps we might consider in detail in Committee. The short answer is that in our view that Act has entirely served its purpose.

Mr. Ede: I could take the hon. and learned Gentleman to meetings where he would find that Act is still necessary to resolve certain firmly held doubts.

The Solicitor-General: I should be very surprised if it were necessary to resolve any reasonable doubts. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me notice of his perturbation about the repeal of this Act. I have looked into it again, but, as I say, I am satisfied that it can be safely repealed. But we can return to this matter during the Committee stage discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South asked about our interpretation of Clause 4 (4) (c). In my view, it is to be read in this way that a charity is not required to be registered either if it has not a permanent endowment which is defined in Clause 43 (3) or any income from property amounting to more than

£15 or if it does not have the use or occupation of any land. In other words, if it has a permanent endowment it must register, if it has an income from property amounting to more than £15 it must register, or if it occupies or uses any land it must register. If it has an income it will be registered already with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purpose of tax exemption. If it has a permanent endowment or pays Income Tax or rates it must register.

Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that a charity with an endowment of say, £400, producing an income of under £15 a year must register?

The Solicitor-General: If it has an endowment at all it must register, that is a permanent endowment as defined in the later Clause to which I referred.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West raised the question of the power to draw on capital and asked whether that would involve a permanent endowment. The answer is that if there is power to draw on capital without qualification that is not a permanent endowment; but apart from that, it would be a permanent endowment.
The hon. Member for Islington, East asked a very important question about Clause 4 in relation to Clause 9, regarding the position of existing charities which already enjoy Inland Revenue exemption. This exemption is not permanent; it depends upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue being satisfied from year to year that the body is a charity. I should not think that there is any reason for apprehension on the part of a charity which enjoys an existing exemption. But, under Clause 9 (1), we provide for an interchange of information between the Inland Revenue Commissioners and the Charity Commissioners, and indeed the local authority for rating purposes, so there will be one conclusive register to determine for the time being the charitable status of the institution.
I wish to emphasise again in relation to the question put by the hon. Member for Islington, East that the fact that a body is not registered is not conclusive evidence that it is not a charity. It applies only the other way round. I was asked whether there was any retrospective operation on removal from the register. The answer is that there is


not. It is conclusively presumed to have been a charity at any time while it was on the register.
I now come to the relations with the local authorities. Again I think that the position that the Bill sets out has been generally approved. It is a position of co-operation. In all cases it rests on the discretion of the trustees whether they should give the information to the local authorities. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks what is the relation between the central register and the local authority index. The local authority index can, as he surmised, go beyond the central register. In so far as it does, it depends on the co-operation of, and the voluntary information vouchsafed by, the local charity. The details will be the same as those on the card in the card index in so far as they are supplied by the Commissioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) asked about urban district councils. We have considered this carefully since the matter was discussed in another place. Our present view is that there are not sufficient charities with which an urban district council would be concerned to justify including them, and that the Bill should stand as it is. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing that further.
One minor point was referred to by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) in relation to Clause 8 (3). It does not lay, as he implied, any obligation on the trustees of local charities to have their accounts audited by the distinguished members of the bodies set out in Clause 8 (3). Those are the classes of accountants which can be called in by the Commissioners when they feel it their duty to have the accounts audited.
I now come to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, in relation to Clauses 17 and 19—in other words, the right to appeal. The purpose of Clause 19, which is a new provision and, I think, on the whole approved by the House, is this: under the existing law the only action that has been open to the Commissioners after holding an inquiry is to

report the case to the Attorney-General. But it may well happen that in the interval between the discovery of some misfeasance and the launching of Chancery proceedings the charity assets suffer some further loss.
That danger was recognised in the War Charities Act and in another Act relating to disabled persons, charities in 1948. Therefore, Clause 19 (1) gives the Commissioners power to act on their own motion. There is, however, an appeal from their decision. There is an appeal either with leave of the Commissioners or with leave of a judge of the High Court attached to the Chancery Division.
I cannot regard that latter as being in any way a restricted appeal, any more than is an appeal with leave of the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords. It does mean that whereas at the moment there is no appeal except with leave of the Commissioners, any charity trustee who is affronted at a decision of the Commissioners can now himself go to a judge of the Chancery Division and get leave to appeal.
I do not myself read Clause 17 in the way in which it was read by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. I do not think that it would be any answer for the Commissioners to say "We were satisfied and therefore the High Court has no power to review our decision." The phrases "if a judge is satisfied" or "if a body is satisfied" apply where the facts on which a decision has been made—in fact the whole decision—are reviewable by a court of law. It seems to me that a plain reading of Clause 17 allows an appeal to the Chancery Division with the leave of one of the judges of that division, in which the charity trustees will have a chance of showing that the decision of the Commissioners was a wrong one under Clause 17 (6). It therefore seems to me that my hon. Friend was really seeing ghosts when he saw that particular provision as a chance of taking over charitable funds for the purpose of the National Health Service.
The final matter on which I wish to say something is about the doctrine of cy-pres. I will not go into that in any detail today, because this is a matter which we would like to consider further.


There is a great deal in the point urged by a number of hon. Members that we ought to try and see that gifts given for specific charitable purposes, which fail in such similar circumstances to the Gillingham bus disaster case, can be applied cy-pres. On the other hand, it is very important that we should preserve the right of identifiable subscribers who may make quite substantial gifts and who may regard as unwarranted any appropriation of their gifts for a charitable purpose different from that for which they subscribed. But we will try to give due weight to both of those considerations.
I now come to the question of the validation of imperfect gifts for charity. The hon. Member for Islington, East proposed one test, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East proposed another, and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East proposed that where charitable purposes were expressed with other purposes the gift should be divided proportionately. It seemed to me that he was seeking to emulate the methods as well as the wisdom of Solomon. We will, however, consider that suggestion.
I now come to the specific point raised by the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) and Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in speeches which obviously moved the House. If the fund is capable of being applied cy-pres, Clause 13, which is an extension of the existing position, will make it easier to satisfy the conditions necessary before a cy-pres scheme can be made. But, from other points of view, the question is intimately bound up with the proposed new Clause which I have promised to consider and to which I have referred; that, we trust, will make it easier for gifts limited to a particular purpose which has failed to be applied for other charitable purposes. Perhaps we can return to that point in Committee. Many other points have been raised, but perhaps the House will permit us to return to them in Committee.
The Collect for the Sunday before Lent speaks of "that most excellent gift of Charity" as "the very bond of peace and of all virtues". The Bill deals with the implementation of some of the noblest impulses of the human heart. Over the centuries, the people of this

country have responded fully to the words of the Psalmist:
Blessed be the man that provideth for the sick and needy".
The great accumulation of property that has resulted has naturally required the sanction and safeguard of the law but in the course of time, as we have been reminded today, the law has become defective and obscure, difficult to find and interpret and, above all, unresponsive to the new social developments. As a result, although charity may begin at home, all too often it ends in the law courts.
The Bill provides an up-to-date, luminous and compendious legislative instrument within which this country's beneficence can continue to operate, and as such I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 83 (Committal of Bills).

CHARITIES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to replace with new provisions the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1939, and other enactments relating to charities, to make further provision as to the powers exercisable by or with respect to charities, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of remuneration and allowances to the Charity Commissioners and their officers and servants;
(b) any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Education or the Charity Commissioners;
(c) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.

(2) if the Act provides for an officer of the Charity Commissioners to have the function of acting as trustee for charities, the charging on the Consolidated Fund of any sums


required for making good to a charity sums for which he may become liable as trustee for the charity;
(3) the payment into the Exchequer of any fees received by the Minister of Education or the Charity Commissioners under or by virtue of any provision of the said Act.—[Sir J. Simon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There was an understanding, I believe, that if the Charities Bill should uncharitably take more than what appeared to be a reasonable time, this Bill, although the business was exempted, would not proceed too late. We are very late in starting discussion on this Bill and I therefore ask the Minister to tell us what his intentions are and if he means to complete the Report stage and the Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Rankin: Then would the Minister give us the benefit of his thoughts on this matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I call the Minister to move his Motion.
Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 5, page 7, line 45, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Sandys.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 5.—(REGULATIONS.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I beg to move, in page 7, line 45, at the end to insert:
and for the payment by the Minister of travelling or other expenses reasonably incurred by any person as a member of any such committee".

This is a consequential Amendment to enable minor travelling and other expenses to be met out of public funds where, hitherto, they have been met out of the funds of the Corporations.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not want to raise any point on this Amendment, but as we are in Committee for a very short time, and the rules are a little easier, and as it may affect our consideration of the business before us, would it be possible for the Minister to reply to the question which has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) so that we know where we are; how long the proceedings are likely to be this evening; whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to finish the Bill, and what he has in mind.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying—I could not say it before, because I should have been out of order—that it is our hope that we shall complete the Bill tonight. I hope that the House will not think it necessary to have a very prolonged debate on Third Reading, but we have no wish to curtail the freedom or length of the discussion. We had better see how we get on before we decide whether any special measures are necessary.

Mr. Rankin: May I say, Sir Gordon, that I hope that the Minister will not press the attitude which is implicit in what he said? He did not seem to say— at least, that was my inference—that he intended to press the Bill through to the bitter end tonight. Nevertheless, I know that one or two hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be severely inconvenienced if he takes up that attitude.
I agree with the purpose of the Amendment, but it seems to be a very wordy affair. When I read it I instinctively understood it to mean:
and for the payment by the Minister of expenses incurred by a member of any such committee.
I will leave the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why the Government have had to use so many words to achieve what seems capable of being achieved by far fewer words. If we distinguish between travelling and other expenses, it seems legitimate to ask what kind of


other expenses are envisaged. If a person incurs expenses in the course of carrying out his duties on a committee to which he has been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, all expenses, travelling or otherwise, will surely be paid for. It does not seem to me that any distinction should be made.
The use of the word "reasonable" naturally makes one think that some expenses are unreasonably incurred. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman must have in mind the fact that some people incur unreasonable expenses. I should like to know how the expenses are judged, and how the differentiation will be made between unreasonable and reasonable expenses before they are paid over.
Why should we have the roundabout phrase,
by any person as a member of any such committee"?
That appears to be rodomontade in excelsis. When I read it I thought that it could be put much more simply. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able fully to justify this seemingly excessive use of words.

Mr. George Chetwynd: The Amendment is necessary, because we agreed in Committee that we should have regional advisory committees, but so that we may be able to judge how much money is likely to be spent on this matter, can the Minister say what committees he is setting up, and how many members they will have?

Mr. Sandys: Without committing myself finally, I have in mind that these committees will be of the same kind as have existed hitherto, that is to say, one for Scotland, one for Northern Ireland, and one for Wales. England is usually thought to be able to look after itself.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) complained of the excess of words in the Amendment, but it is in as precise a form as it can be drafted. It must provide for a member incurring these expenses as a member of such a committee and not in some other capacity. The point of the Amendment is that, at the moment, expenses incurred by members of advisory committees are met out of the money of the Airways Corporations. Since these committees

will now be responsible to the Board they will have to be met out of public funds. Therefore, some provision of this kind was necessary. It is consequential on the decision taken by the Standing Committee.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I do not want to delay the Minister, so I will be as brief as I can. Are not the words "necessarily incurred" more practicable than "reasonably incurred" in this context? Will the Minister look at that with a view to altering it in another place?

Mr. Sandys: I will certainly have a look at it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF LICENSING AUTHORITY, AND RESTRICTION OF UNLICENSED FLYING.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
with the general duty of furthering the development of British civil aviation".
I gave an undertaking in Committee that I would consider putting down an Amendment which would act as a sort of general preamble to the Bill setting out in very general terms that the Board had a general duty to further the advancement of British civil aviation. These words are intended to carry out that undertaking.

Mr. Chetwynd: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add:
providing that this will not be to the detriment of the present or future activities of the air corporations.
We agree with the Minister that it was right to have this preamble setting out the general duty of the Board as furthering the interests of British civil aviation, but during the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage of the Bill we were not in complete agreement as to what those purposes were and how they were to be achieved.
During the Second Reading debate and in Committee the main Opposition


attack was made because we considered that this was a deliberate attempt by the Government to weaken the position of the public Corporations in the interests of the private airlines. We felt that as the Minister's declared intention was to further private lines that could only be done to the detriment of the public Corporations.
We feel that as well as having the duty of furthering the development of British civil aviation it should be specifically stated in the Bill that that should not be to the detriment of the two great public Corporations. We press the Amendment on these grounds. The main development of British aviation during the past fifteen years has been with the two Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. They have provided a worldwide network of regular and efficient air services. They have built B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. into two great public Corporations responsible to Parliament and accountable to this House. As the Minister admitted, they have acted as instruments of national policy. They have been ambassadors for this country all over the world. They have been our flag carriers, and have met intense competition from the airlines of many other countries which have often been heavily subsidised by their Governments to further the prestige of those countries.
The two Corporations are now emerging successfully from a difficult period. They are showing profits in a highly marginal industry. We are delighted that last year B.E.A. made a profit of over £2 million. That was the sixth consecutive year in which the Corporation made a profit, and that profit was a record. The Corporations carried over 3¼ million passengers and, as I say, have made great strides in bringing about low fares and the like. Again, B.O.A.C. has broken even, as far as one can tell, on last year's operations in exceedingly difficult circumstances.
We feel that this is the wrong time to threaten the Corporations' position by the sort of action that we fear may take place under the Bill. The Corporations have laid out the pattern for their future activities. They have modernised their fleets. They have a new fleet of modern aircraft coming into being, into phased service, over the next few years. B.O.A.C. has commitments of about

£200 million to keep its fleet up-to-date and to get ahead. In the next few years, B.E.A. faces an expenditure of about £65 million. They have both been instrumental in getting accepted a dynamic low-fares policy aimed at attracting more and more people to air travel as against other forms of transport. About £300 million is involved in what we look upon as "our" Corporations.
We therefore sense that a danger in this new set-up under the Bill, in which the Minister is looking upon other airlines as rival commercial competitors of the Corporations, is that is bound to undermine the established position of the Corporations. From a statement made by the Minister a few weeks ago about certain fares arrangements, it is already clear that there will be parallel services on certain European routes, on certain routes across the Atlantic, and on the cabotage routes throughout the Colonial Dependencies. That is bound to impinge on the present and contemplated activities of the Corporations. It will disperse their efforts at this critical time when they have to meet intense competition from all the other national airlines.
The point was made in Committee that, after all, there should be no distinction between an airline publicly owned and one privately owned, but we dispute that. The Corporations are different. They have to act all the time in the public interest. They are not just other private commercial concerns interested solely in making profits for shareholders.
The Minister, during Second Reading, and again in Committee, declared that the Bill was not intended to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. He repeated that so often that we almost began to believe him, but when we asked him to enshrine that declaration in the Bill, and put forward words aimed at that end, he always refused.
We do not see any reason why this provision should not be embodied in the language of this Measure. Now that the independents are more closely and effectively organised into four or five main groups closely allied to the shipping interests, there is ample scope for them. As we see it, under the Minister's policy of forcing mergers in the air transport industry as well as in the aircraft manufacturing industry, the independents are well able to look after


themselves in many spheres. We do not wish to see, nor, I think, does any person interested in the economics of air transport, a free-for-all. It is apparent to us that the abandonment of the Corporations to free competition would damage them and, in turn, damage the national interest. We believe that as they are public property they ought to be properly safeguarded by the Bill.
This is certainly the wrong time to create any uncertainty by this Measure. The Corporations are now on a firm financial basis. They are meeting heavy capital costs in the introduction of new aircraft. They face great competition from overseas airlines, yet, as we see it, this Bill withdraws a measure of protection and support that Governments throughout the world are giving to their own national airlines.
If we look at what the Minister proposes shall be the pattern of air transport in the future, and read his statement on fares, in which he says that in order not to undermine the position of the independents the Corporations have agreed to share some of their routes with them, we see that B.O.A.C. is to share the routes to East and Central Africa with British United Airways—a new grouping of Air-work and Hunting Clan. It is to share the route to Bermuda—and, I suppose, looking a little further ahead, the route across the Atlantic as well—with Eagle, which is associated with Cunard. B.E.A. is to share the Malta route with Skyways, and the Gibraltar route with British United Airways. At present, as far as one can see, the Far Eastern routes are left solely to the charge of B.O.A.C.
We still do not know what the agreement is between the Corporations and the private companies on this sharing. We sought to find out, but were met with a blank refusal of any information. We believe that it is absolutely right that the House should be told the basis of this sharing arrangement by which we fear that public property, public institutions, are in danger of being undermined. It is not good enough to say that these are commercial arrangements made willingly between the two parties. I do not believe for one moment that they were freely entered into, but that the Corporations had to accept them as part of a pressurised campaign to which they were subjected.
Is it to be a 70 per cent.—30 per cent. share, or less, or more? We have the right to know. Parliament should not be kept in the dark. In considering the general future development of British civil aviation, we want to know whether these partnerships represent anything more satisfactory than the old associate agreements which we all condemned so much on Second Reading. It is because we feel that the Minister—perhaps not the present Minister, but a successor— will have power to influence the development of British civil aviation away from the two Corporations and towards the private airlines that we insist that something shall be established in the Bill to make that impossible.
However, we believe in and hope for a great expansion of world-wide air traffic in which the benefits of quick, cheap travel will be brought within the range of many millions of people. We hope that the British aircraft industry, which the two Corporations have fostered and helped along by buying its planes, will be able to meet the demands of the air corporations so that our own British aviation industry can again maintain its place in the forefront of world aircraft makers. We believe that a sound economic and political basis for our own civil aviation business can be achieved only by preserving and strengthening the demands and needs of the Corporations.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: It would have been much better if the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) had started his speech with the word "expansion", because I believe that that is the whole crux of the future of British aviation and aviation generally throughout the world. He said that the Opposition believed that the Bill must impair the position of the Corporations. If that is the case, presumably the object of the Opposition's Amendment to my right hon. Friend's Amendment is to emasculate the Bill, in other words, to make it impossible for the Licensing Board to look on British civil aviation as a whole, but to look upon it merely in regard to the position of the Corporations.
My right hon. Friend's Amendment is clear and concise. We on this side are all grateful to him for tabling it. It


will provide that the Licensing Board will have
the general duty of furthering the development of British civil aviation".
If the Board acts in accordance with those instructions, it must be for the benefit of this country as a whole. It must be for the benefit of the economy of the country. It must be for the benefit of civil aviation as a whole. That must include the Corporations. It cannot be to the detriment of the Corporations.

Mr. John Diamond: Why not say so?

Mr. Burden: The Licensing Board is charged with the duty of furthering the interests of British civil aviation as a whole. That is what the country wants. It is the position on which the Minister is entitled to take his stand. It is the duty of any Minister of Aviation to look at the interests of the country as a whole when dealing with the civil aviation industry.

Mr. Diamond: What the hon. Member is saying is of great interest. If, as he says, the whole purpose of the Minister's Amendment is to benefit aviation generally and to do so in a way which will not be detrimental to the activities of the air Corporations, what is the reason, if there is any, for excluding my hon. Friend's Amendment, if it is to be excluded?

Mr. Burden: Because I believe that it is right and proper that no strings whatever should be attached to the Licensing Board. It should have before it all the time the interests of civil aviation as a whole. If the word "Corporations" is inserted, all sorts of objections can be made, time-delaying and otherwise, in order to procrastinate and create difficulties which should not exist and should not be allowed to exist.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees looked upon this in far too narrow a light. It seems to be the argument of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that there must not be any competition for the Corporations from British independents. The hon. Member went on to say that the Corporations are subjected to the most violent competition from the international airways. That is the whole point. Air competition

is international. It can never be anything else.
If the giant Corporations, with all the new equipment and £300 million, cannot compete with the small independents, which will now work with them with pooling arrangements and in other ways, how can they possibly compete with the international airways?

Mr. Charles A, Howell: The Corporations will share only in the unprofitable routes.

Mr. Burden: This is where right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to recognise the distinction between nationalised Corporations subject to no competition and Airways Corporations which must always be subject to international competition.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees talked of great expansion. That is true. The opportunities for expansion are enormous, and it is right and proper that the Licensing Board should recognise that. The figures given by the hon. Member sounded very fine. He said that 3¼ million people had been carried by B.E.A. and a million by B.O.A.C. Probably well over 70 million were carried by the international airways. Therefore, the British Corporations carried a very small proportion. B.E.A. has said recently that it has greatly increased the numbers of people it carries, because Britain is introducing much lower fares. Who made the pressure for those lower fares from which B.E.A. has benefited so much? It was the independents.

Mr. Strauss: Oh, no.

Mr. Burden: Yes. It was suggested by the independents.
In fact, this is the situation. So that there should be a close comity between themselves and the Corporations they have dropped of their own free will their agitation for V.L.F. It is evident from B.E.A. that there will be enormous expansion in the air. I believe that, as a result of the Bill and the duties with which the Licensing Board is charged, the fears of right hon. Gentlemen opposite will soon be shown to be quite wrong and unjustified.
I believe that the expansion will be so great that the Corporations and the independents will work even more closely


together and that the arrangements for pooling and understanding will extend even more closely because of the pressures that will be brought about. The great Corporations and the independents will benefit in parallel not only from expansion but also from the co-operation which is now beginning and which I believe, as a result of my right hon. Friend's measures, will be extended in the future to the benefit of British aviation as a whole.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) ignored one point when he was dealing with the Minister's Amendment. The Amendment reads:
with the general duty of furthering the development of British civil aviation.
The hon. Member took upon himself the duty of amending it by adding the three words "as a whole." Those words do not appear in the Amendment to which he was speaking.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden rose—

Mr. Rankin: Just a minute. The hon. Member should let me get out a sentence or two before I am asked to give way to interruptions, which I always entertain. Even the absence of those three words helps to cast doubts on the arguments and the intentions not only of the Minister but of hon. Members who sit behind him.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member misunderstood what I said. I said that the Board was charged with the duty of seeing that British civil aviation as a whole benefited. That may not be in the wording but that, of course, is implicit.

Mr. Rankin: Sometimes it is difficult to understand the hon. Member. I am using his exact words, and his argument did not make the matter any clearer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) dealt with expansion, but I do not want to launch into that topic just now. The Minister knows that in Committee I made it clear that I trusted his intentions, but I do not trust the intentions of the group who are propelling him from behind. The trouble is that the road to the Tory Front Bench seems paved with the best of intentions and when the right hon. Gentleman sits against the background which is now behind him he begins to

assume the colour of that background and his intentions begin to wither.
Tonight he is faced with a definite challenge. We are firmly convinced on this side of the House that the purpose of the Bill is to attack the Corporations, and the right hon. Gentleman, either willingly or unwillingly, is the spearhead of that attack. But it is also the purpose of the Bill to attack the Corporations by unfair methods. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted not only to preserve the present status of the Corporations but to ensure that they would be able to participate as freely in the future in the expansion which we all foresee, then he would accept the Amendment which we are putting before him. I hope that he will accept that Amendment. The competition will exist—there is no argument about that—but it will be unfair competition, and I want to show why I say that.
I have here a letter dated 12th April of this year from the Aeronautical Engineers' Association. The address is 108, Church Street, Croydon, Surrey, and the letter is signed by E. Hanlon, who is the honourary secretary of the A.E.A. He tells me:
We have had probably more experience of independent airlines than any other trade union in this country, and we are bound to say that there is one particular abuse which ought to be remedied before this Bill becomes law. As the Minister pointed out during the Second Reading on 2nd March, 1960, the independent airlines will still be required by the Civil Aviation Act to observe terms and conditions not less favourable than those of the Corporations. However, although this has been the law for many years, there has been discovered a very easy way round it.
Of course, it is a common saying that one can drive a carriage and pair through an Act of Parliament, and that carriage and pair is now being driven through an Act of Parliament.
What is happening and has happened is that airline companies form subsidiary companies, or even become associated with other companies which are not airlines within the meaning of the Act. These other companies are therefore exempt from the operation of the Civil Aviation Act and can pay any rates of pay they wish. There is then an ostensible arrangement between the two companies by which the engineers servicing the airlines' aircraft are actually employed by the other company, so that one end of the operator


is within the Act and the other end is outside the Act.
As a consequence, they can service machines under conditions and rates of pay with which the public Corporations cannot compete, because they do their own maintenance work. The companies for whom the hon. Member for Gillingham and other hon. Members opposite are working today, by whom I believe they are paid retainers to try to get a Bill like this through the House in the interests of the private independent airlines for whom they speak, know these things.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time. He knows the import of that accusation, and unless he explains it in some innocent sense, I shall be required to ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Rankin: I have not been here such a long time; it has seemed very short. I did not mention any names, and I thought that it was a fair enough argument to employ, because it is an understood practice in the House that when an individual who is identified with an interest takes part in a debate, he declares his interest; and it is not denied that there are hon. Members opposite who are identified with independent air operators in one way or another. If what I am saying is not in accordance with known facts, then I shall immediately withdraw it, but, Sir, I had already said this in the House and in Committee and it was not then challenged.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I did not have the advantage of being in the Committee, and therefore of having the happy opportunity of hearing the hon. Member then. For a moment it seemed to me that he was implying that by a paid retainer— that was the word which struck my mind—the propositions of the hon. Members were governed. I do not think that that is right. If the hon. Member likes to slide out of it by making it clear that this was not what he meant, I will not stop him.

Mr. Rankin: I do not like to slide out of anything, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to stand by what I said. If you rule it to be out of order, then, naturally, I accept your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: What I rule is that to impute that the activities of hon. Members here are deflected by the fact that they are paid money and retained is an imputation of wrong motive which should not be made. However, I am not confident that the hon. Member was meaning to say that—I did not understand his words precisely enough—and I ask him to remain in order.

Mr. Rankin: I am very sorry if that implication should have been taken by you, Sir, or by anyone else. The fact that an individual works for someone does not make it wrong, and the fact that he advances an interest for those who may be employing him does not make it wrong either. I am not saying that, and I hope it will be clearly understood that even though people may work for independent interests, they are not necessarily doing anything that is morally wrong. I hope that that is clear.
I have been quoting a letter which shows that the independent companies— and I hope I may fairly say the independent companies whose interests are being advanced tonight in this House— adopt methods in their maintenance work which enable them to impose rates of pay and conditions of labour with which the Corporations cannot compete; and that is wrong. It is wrong to treat the Corporations in that way.
Of course, if costs are less, then fares can become less, too. That is one reason why we hear it said, as we have heard it said during the proceedings on this Bill, that fares can be reduced. Of course they can be reduced if the conditions under which aircraft are maintained are cheapened, and if we violate one of the safeguards which the Minister has pledged himself to ensure—namely, greater safety in the operation of aircraft.
Fares can be cheapened unfairly if we assume—and here I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster):
We are not in a position to neglect the interests of the ordinary members of the public who may be prepared to fly in perhaps cramped conditions at cheap fares."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 22nd March, 1960; c. 63.]


If we cheapen not only the conditions in which aircraft are maintained but also the conditions in which people are carried in the aircraft, it will be possible to reduce fares. That is unfair competition. It is an attack upon the Corporations, who, within my experience, have done everything in their power year by year to improve the conditions in which people travel in their aircraft.
We are introducing two contradictory processes, one of cheapening the service and another of seeking to maintain it at its present high standard, at the same time trying to make that standard higher still, while British European Airways is carrying out a process of reducing fares. Nobody, in any part of the House, wants to make that process more difficult. These, however, are the intentions of the Conservative Party.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister, who is not at present here to listen to me, what I am saying, and that he will not yield to the pressure which is being put upon him by those who sit behind him. If he does not yield to it, I shall take it as an indication of the toughness attributed to him in his willingness to fight not only the Opposition but also those who sit behind him. That kind of token will be shown by the Minister if he accepts our Amendment, which asks him to declare that he will not do anything to damage the activities of the Airways Corporations.
I could quote a great deal more from the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I do not wish to do so, because I feel sure that once the hon. Member begins to deal with the Amendment, he will shatter even the confidence of his right hon. Friend the Minister. It was the hon. Member who, in moving his Amendment in Committee, dropped the foetus. The Minister said, "Leave the shaping of it to me", and now we know the result. If the hon. Member delivers a speech in keeping with his speech in Committee, I am certain that common sense and wisdom will drive his right hon. Friend to accept our Amendment.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that the fears which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) are unfounded. He spoke of a foetus having been dropped in Committee. I assure the hon.

Member that there has been no miscarriage in this matter. As his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has said, there has been no disagreement on the main objects of the Bill of bringing the law into line with reality, abolishing the now fictional monopoly of the Corporations and the associate agreements and securing the rights of all operators before an independent licensing authority which conducts proceedings openly and subject to the right of appeal.
Against the background of all our discussions, there is no reason to believe that the establishment of the new Board will operate in any way to the detriment of the Corporations.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees referred to the very clear assurance given on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend, who said:
In particular, I can tell the House what the Bill will not do, and is not intended to do. It is not intended to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Those two corporations are our main flag carriers on the air routes of the world. Large sums of public money have been invested in them and they have to face fierce competition from foreign rivals. They therefore deserve, and will get, our full support and encouragement." —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd March, 1960; Vol. 618. c 1231–2.]
As the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, my right hon. Friend repeated those assurances in Committee. He also said, however, at our second sitting in Committee:
I hope very much that in this Bill we shall preserve the principle that all applications to the Board are airline operators, that there are not two classes, the Corporations and others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 22nd March, 1960; c. 52.]
What we have to do in the Bill is to preserve the position of equality before the law. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees gave some impressive statistics about the Corporations. I should have thought it followed that there was no reason for lack of confidence in the Corporations' ability to hold their own without weighting the scales of the law.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that there is no intention that there should be a free-for-all. He has given his approval to various partnership and pooling arrangements, but the whole basis of the Bill is that there should be reasonable protection for established


operators while at the same time ensuring reasonable chances for the public and the private sector to share in the opportunities to which reference has been made.
9.45 p.m.
The Bill creates an instrument for regulating the air transport industry which will take account of all the relevant factors in the public interest as well as that of the operators themselves. They will appear before the Board on equal terms, although, as my right hon. Friend explained during the Committee stage proceedings, the amount of public money invested in the Corporations and their commitments may mean that in the first years there will not in fact be equality. The Corporations have an established position which to some extent must be preserved. It is for the reason that we must accept equality before the law, that we cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary straight away that he is wrong in suggesting that there is little disagreement between us about the Bill. We do not disagree that new machinery should be established, but we strongly disagree about the protection to be afforded to the Corporations under the Bill. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said the purpose of the Amendment, so far as he could see, was to emasculate the Bill, but it is nothing of the sort. Its purpose is to put into legislative effect the intentions expressed by the Minister over and over again.
Statements and declarations made in Parliament are of themselves of no use. I am sure that the Minister is quite sincere when he says that his intention is that the Corporations shall not be damaged by the Bill. But we ask what is to happen in the future. The Minister does not know, because almost in the same breath as he said that it was his intention that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. should not be damaged—he was talking about the future pattern of aviation during the Second Reading debate—he said that he could not tell the House just how it would all work out.
No one knows. There may be a new Minister, or the pressure behind a Conservative Minister may be stronger than it is today. There is very great danger— let us put it no higher—in the opinion not only of hon. Members on this side

of the Committee, but of air correspondents in the public Press, that the Corporations are threatened by the Bill and may be damaged.
During the Second Reading debate I quoted from sections of the Press. I do not want to do that again, but it will be remembered that the air correspondents talked about the buffeting which the Corporations were likely to experience as a result of the Bill. These are possibilities—if we put it no higher— and we know that there are many hon. Members opposite whose main desire is to ensure that the private profit-making airlines get a greater and greater proportion of the air traffic. Of course, the airlines also want this, that is natural and we do not blame them. We know there are many hon. Members opposite who hold strong political prejudices against publicly-owned bodies. The combination of the pressure created by the prejudices of hon. Members opposite and the pressure from privately-owned airlines may induce a different atmosphere in which the Corporations will be damaged.
The hon. Member for Gillingham said that the private airlines had brought down air fares. That is absolute nonsense. The Corporations have for a long time been striving to reduce fares and the reduction has nothing to do with private airlines. The hon. Member asked us to look at the advantages which I gathered the Corporations would derive from the new sharing agreements but I do not understand how the Corporations will derive any advantage. All it means is that part of the revenue from some air services which would have gone to the Corporations will go to private airlines.
We know that the Corporations were —"forced" is not quite the exact word —were put into the position that they had to make these agreements and I think it monstrous that we do not know what are the agreements. The Corporations have been obliged to make agreements with British private airlines and we cannot be told in Parliament, and we are not told by the Corporations, in what proportion of the services will be shared. I think it a shameful thing that we should not know the essential facts and I hope that the Minister will exert pressure on the Corporations to let us know these facts. However, that is something which is beside the point.


The main purpose of the Amendment is to put into effect the declared intentions of the Minister. Unless that is done, we are fearful that the Corporations will be damaged. We tried during the Committee stage proceedings to incorporate a safeguard in more precise terms, but this was rejected. But for the sake of the Corporations which are publicly owned and in which £300 million of public money is invested, we think that this should be done. The Corporations are the instrument by wihich Britain is trying to maintain her position in the air transport industry. Let the Bill therefore state that nothing will be done to the detriment of the present or future activities of the Corporations.
The Minister has said that that is his intention. Why not remove all doubts about what is likely to happen in the future and ensure that the Corporations shall not be damaged? I suggest that to do so would be in the interests not of the Corporations, in which I am not interested as such, but of the public and for the national benefit. The Corporations and not the private airlines are the bodies which carry the national responsibility.
My colleagues and I feel very strongly about this and ask the House to agree to this reasonable Amendment, which

only carries out the declared intention of the Government. If the Minister, as appears from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, refuses to put into legislative form his own declared intention, we must ask the House to divide.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Government Chief Whip to say to one of his back benchers "Do not get up," as I plainly heard?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I did not hear it.

The Question is—

Mr. Diamond: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I too late to catch your eye to address the House on this Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I started to put the Amendment. I have great respect for the hon. Member, and I am sorry to disappoint him, but I think that it is true as a matter of physical fact in terms of time.

Question put, That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 107.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[9.53 p.m.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Jeger, George
Snow, Julian


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnston, Douglas (Palsley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Steele, Thomas


Diamond, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Doughty, Charles
Loughlln, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, Tudor


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hayman, F. H.
Oram, A. E.
Whitlock, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunter, A. E.
Skeffington, Arthur
Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cordle, John
Finlay, Graeme


Arbuthnot, John
Costain, A. P.
Fisher, Nigel


Barber, Anthony
Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Batsford, Brian
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward


Berkeley, Humphry
Crowder, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bingham, R. M.
Currie, G. B. H.
Glyn, Col. Richard (Dorset. N.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
de Ferranti, Basil
Goodhart, Philip


Bourne-Arton, A.
Doughty, Charles
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Green, Alan


Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Duncan, Sir James
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Elliott, R. W.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Cleaver, Leonard
Emery, Peter
Hobson, John


Collard, Richard
Farr, John
Holland, Philip




Hopkins, Alan
Noble, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)
Tapsell, Peter


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, Graham
Temple, John M.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peel, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turner, Colin


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitt, Miss Edith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vickers, Miss Joan


Litchfield, Capt. John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, James
Wall, Patrick


Loveys, Walter H.
Rawlinson, Peter
Watts, James


MacArthur, Ian
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Whitelaw, William


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Rippon, Geoffrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wlse, A. R.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodhouse, C. M.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Shaw, M.
Woollam, John


Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, William
Worsley, Marcus


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn



Mills, Stratton
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morgan, William
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Mr. Brooman-White and


Nicholls, Harmar
Stodart, J. A.
 Mr. Sharples.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. Redmayne.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on Recommittal) further considered.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from beginning to "may" in line 36 and to insert:
(3) The Minister may by regulations provide that paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection shall not apply to flights of such descriptions as may be specified in the regulations, and.
As originally drafted, Clause 1 (3) contained a list of classes of flights for which air service licences would not be required. The Committee considered that this provision was unduly rigid and some greater flexibility was desirable to meet changed conditions which could not at present be foreseen. I was asked, therefore, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to consider introducing on Report an Amendment which would empower the Minister by regulations to add or subtract from the list of exempted classes set out in the subsection. I undertook to do this.
However, on further reflection I came to the conclusion that this would be a most untidy arrangement. Moreover, I was advised that there were some doubts

about the constitutional propriety of giving the Minister the power to amend an Act of Parliament by regulation. I am proposing, therefore, a simpler solution which will, I believe, equally well meet the wishes expressed in Committee.
The effect of the Amendment is to leave out the list of exempted nights altogether and to give the Minister power to grant such exemptions as may be necessary by regulation. I know that the House attaches importance to the list of exemptions which were contained in the Bill as drafted, as indicating the general line which the Government intended to pursue. I give the House the assurance that in making the initial regulations when the Bill becomes law it is my intention to exempt all those classes of nights which are now set out in subsection (3). With that assurance, I hope that the House will approve the Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friends and I were rather surprised to see this Amendment on the Order Paper, as it is in conflict with the undertaking which the Minister gave to the Committee where there was general agreement as to how this matter should be dealt with. That general agreement included the Minister. We then found that the Amendment did not carry out the promise which he gave to accept the general principles which had been agreed.
The right hon. Gentleman has explained to us why he has departed from the undertaking he gave, and he tells us that there are certain legal or constitutional difficulties in the matter. He proposes to get round them in the way in which he informed us, and we must


accept his views. No doubt he has been given technical advice, which is not available to us, that there is some real difficulty in carrying out the conclusions of the Standing Committee on this matter.
I regret that it is not possible to do this, but in view of what he tells us about his intention to issue regulations identical with the exclusions which are stated in the Bill at the moment, and which would enable him at a later stage to alter, amend, add to or deduct from these excluded classes, I think that the House must accept the solution which the Minister has put to it, although it is not in accordance with the general feeling expressed in Committee upstairs.
Therefore, disappointed as my hon. Friends may be, I advise them to accept the Amendment in view of the explanation which the Minister has given us.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(Am SERVICE LICENCES.)

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, at the end to insert:
(b) the provision made or proposed to be made against any liability in respect of loss or damage to persons or property which may be incurred in connection with aircraft operated by the applicant;
(c) any unfair advantage of the applicant over other operators by reason of the terms and conditions of employment of his servants.
This Amendment meets two separate undertakings given by my right hon. Friend in Committee. Paragraph (b) requires the Board, in accordance with the undertaking given to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter), to have regard to provisions made or proposed to be made for insurance against any liability in respect of damage to persons or property. We feel that the words are wide enough to cover the insurance of passengers or cargo in an aircraft, as well as third party insurance of all kinds.
Paragraph (c) is inserted to give effect to an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead). The words he originally proposed in Committee were open to the objection that they appeared to give the Board functions akin to those of an industrial tribunal. The Amendment now proposed requires the Board to consider terms and conditions of employment of operators' staff so far as they are relevant to the operators' competitive position. It

is proposed that the Board will be required, under subsection (1), to consult as necessary, from time to time, the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. The Council will say whether the terms and conditions of employment offered by the applicant conform to the agreements in force in the industry.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am very pleased that the Minister has moved this Amendment. I raised this matter in the Second Reading debate and in Committee. My constituency is near London Airport. It is a built-up area, consisting of houses and other property, including schools, very close to the runways of the airport. The question of third party insurance has been raised by local authorities and also by local residents' associations on many occasions, and I have repeatedly raised it.
It did not seem logical that the driver of a motor car should be compelled by law to insure against third party risks while an aircraft operator should not be compelled to do so. I know that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have the State behind them, and I know that most independent airline operators insure, but there is always a risk that an independent operator may not be insured. In the event of a disaster he might not be able to meet his liabilities, and this could be very tragic for the people involved in the accident. I therefore congratulate the Minister on moving the Amendment.
I know that accidents may occur away from London Airport, but most hon. Members will agree that the danger of accidents occurring is greater when aircraft are taking off or landing. We have had a number of emergency landings at London Airport. Fortunately there have been no tragic results, but it is clear that there is more risk near an airport.
I know that local authorities have been alarmed about this because there are schools and housing estates near runways, and if a company was not insured and there was an accident the results could be very serious. I am therefore pleased that the Minister has put this matter right tonight, and I congratulate him on doing so.
I am also pleased to support the alteration in paragraph (c). B.E.A. and


B.O.A.C. are good employers. Industrial conditions are good, and I am pleased that industrial relations are now good. B.O.A.C. was generous with its redundancy terms when reductions, unfortunately, were made. The Corporations maintain good trading and working conditions, and I am pleased that the Minister has inserted this paragraph so that the Corporations will not be under a disadvantage if independent air operators attempt to employ labour under lower conditions than those laid down by the airline Corporations.
Safety is also included in this. If one has skilled men and a full staff it makes for better safety conditions, and I am, therefore, pleased to support the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) in thanking the Minister and the Government for readily accepting the suggestion, put forward by my hon. Friend in Committee, that paragraph (b) should be a condition of the grant of a licence. Hon. Members who represent constituencies bordering on airports, whether it be London Airport or any other airport, constantly have in mind the possibility of the kind of disaster which occurred at Southall. Until that disaster I used to think of such an accident as merely a theoretical possibility, and hoped that it would never happen. If, in future, a similar incident occurred, and in addition to the damage and unhappiness caused by such an accident there were complications about compensation, that would be asking too much of the residents who live near airports who already have to put up with a great deal of risk and inconvenience.
The provision will go a long way to meeting some of the fears and difficulties that local authorities and residents' associations have raised from time to time. A mere question of compensation cannot undo the damage that might be caused by an accident, but, if damage occurs, the fact that there is now an insurance scheme will go some way to minimising the effects of such an accident. Up till now it has been easier to get a four-engined aircraft into the sky than a moped in the streets.
I am also pleased about the second condition, paragraph (c), which, again, will ensure that, as far as possible, there is parity of conditions of employment between the independent operators and the Corporations.
The Clause has been considerably improved, and it would be churlish not to express our gratitude to the Minister for the ready way in which he has accepted both propositions.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I join, of course, with my two hon. Friends in thanking the Minister for his action. Nevertheless, I must return to the point that I have already made, as it is something that must be pressed. I have correctly pointed out that it is the present practice for the maintenance part of a project to be outside the Act, and for the operating end to be inside. That is something that the Minister must face. How can he prevent this practice by which his obvious and acceptable intention will be destroyed? It is a completely wrong practice, and it will produce the unfair competitive conditions to which he himself is avowedly opposed. He wants to create those basic conditions of equality that will make competition possible, and he must give us some idea of how he proposes to face up to this problem.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the National Joint Council would deal with the matter, but the organisation whose letter I have quoted is not a member of that Council, and its members are employed by independent airlines on wages and salaries, and under conditions that are forbidden to the Corporations by the Act. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with the problem created for him by some of the independent airlines whose interests he is promoting in the Bill?

Mr. Strauss: I want to support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), but before I do so I want to comment on paragraph (b), which deals with insurance against damage to persons and property. We all agree with the purpose of the Amendment, and are grateful to the Minister for putting it down at this stage. It should be borne in mind, however, that the condition that an operator must be insured against third party damage will apply


only when he appeals to the Board for a licence. It may well be—I do not know-that many, or some, existing operators are not insured against damage to third parties as a result of an accident, and that they will not have to go before the Board for many years to come.
I do not suggest how that difficulty can be overcome, though there may be some way of doing so. Perhaps the Minister should exert some pressure on the operators and ask them all immediately to take out adequate third party insurance. It should be appreciated by all concerned that existing operators may not be covered in this way. I ask the Minister to consider that point—I cannot ask him to do more at the moment—and to see whether some steps can be taken to ensure that existing operators are properly covered by insurance against any damage they may do to third parties.
I wish to press the Minister to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan in regard to paragraph (c). The principle is accepted that the Board must consider any unfair advantage that may accrue to one applicant over another as a result of the terms and conditions of the employment of his servants. That is all right as a principle, but how is it to work out? Who can tell the Board that in their view the servants of an applicant, employed on repair, maintenance or whatever it may be, do not enjoy as good wages and conditions as those enjoyed by the servants of another applicant?
Will any trade union or professional society of workers be entitled to say to the Board, "In order to carry out the provisions of the Measure, you should know that the servants of applicant A are getting much worse terms and conditions than the servants of applicant B"? If the unions or professional associations are not allowed to do that, who will be allowed? Can the information be given by other applicants about the payment made to the servants of an applicant? That would be an unfortunate situation. If this provision is to work, the representatives of the servants must be entitled to make those allegations to the Board.
Next, we have to ask: who is to consider these allegations? I gathered from what the Parliamentary Secretary said— and I was surprised to hear him say it

—that it was for the Board to consider whether, in fact, the wages and conditions offered by applicant A were so much worse than those offered by applicant B as to give applicant A an unfair advantage. Is that to be the duty of the Board? If it is, well and good, but it is a duty that we certainly did not appreciate would be put on it.
In the past, such technical matters had been, by a directive of the Minister to the A.T.A.C., considered by the Ministry of Labour, who have then advised the A.T.A.C. of its conclusions. Is that system to continue, or is another body to consider individual allegations that the servants of one applicant are being worse paid than those of another?
This is an administrative problem, but when we are considering the principle contained in the Amendment we are entitled to ask the Minister how he proposes to carry it out. As long as it is done effectively, we do not mind very much how it is done. Nevertheless, we want to know how it is to be done. If he has not yet decided, he should tell us, as we are entitled to know.
The right hon. Gentleman has had ample warning about this. It was raised in Committee. There, I specifically asked how this was to be discussed. I asked who would make the complaint and by whom it was to be judged. It is all-important to many professional associations concerned, and perhaps to the trade unions. They feel keenly about this and have communicated with me on the subject. The Government may have a satisfactory answer. If so, we shall all be pleased, as we want a satisfactory solution to this important problem.

Mr. Diamond: I underline what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and draw attention to the even greater and rather more subtle difficulty touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). There is not only the problem of the Board being fully informed and satisfied that conditions as between two applicants are fair. There are areas outside the Bill which closely affect the operating costs of one company or another. For example, it is easy for one company entirely to hive off its maintenance, which is an enormous proportion of its costs and


consists, when broken down, almost entirely of wages.
One company might carry out its maintenance under approved wages and under standards approved, agreed and satisfactory on all accounts. Another company might not be prepared to do this, but might hive off its maintenance work to a separate company, not covered by the Bill and not within its control, employing maintenance workers at considerably less and unfairly competitive rates. In these circumstances, how is the fair competition about which the Minister talks to be achieved?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that this point has been raised, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I intended faithfully to carry out the undertaking I gave. The Amendment deals with it adequately. I made it clear in Committee that I did not regard it as the function of the Board to act as a wages tribunal or in any way to duplicate or supersede the normal organisations which have been set up to deal with difficulties about conditions of employment in industry. It is clear that hon. Members opposite also felt that we should not interfere with the established machinery.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that one operator shall not have an unfair advantage over another operator by reason of the fact that he provides unsatisfactory conditions of employment. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained, it is our intention to use the power conferred in Clause 2 (1), which says:
… the Board may …, after consulting with such persons, if any, as may be prescribed … grant the applicant an air service licence".
It is my intention to prescribe in particular the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport.
I want now to deal shortly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). Allegations of this kind would normally be made by the objector, in other words the rival operator, who felt that the applicant, if

granted the licence, would be getting an unfair advantage by reason of the less favourable conditions of employment he offered. If the Board has an obligation to consult with the National Joint Council, it will get an opinion from the Council as to whether or not the operator comes within the arrangements which have been agreed by both sides of the industry.
The Board can also make inquiries as to whether the applicant is conforming with Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. That still holds good. Suggestions were made in Committee that we might repeal that Section, which deals with terms and conditions of employment. I did not feel that that would be a proper course, and it still stands firm. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Govan.
The Civil Aviation Act, 1949, was passed by the Labour Government. Section 15 provides that the conditions of work, amongst other things, must be
… in accordance with an agreement for the time being in force between the undertaking"—
that is, the airline operator—
and organisations representative of the persons employed".
It does not say just the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. It says:
organisations representative of the persons employed".
In other words, the operator is under an obligation to provide conditions of employment which conform to whatever arrangements have been agreed between the employers and the employees in whatever branch of industry may be concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rankin.

Mr. Rankin: The Minister has—

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has spoken to this Amendment. I did not know that when I called him. If that is so, he cannot speak again.

Amendment agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "need" and to insert "existing or potential need or demand."
This Amendment is designed to meet an undertaking which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), who originally proposed that this paragraph, Clause 2 (2, b) should be omitted altogether. Several other of my hon. Friends, notably the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones), and also the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) took the point that air services generally are built up on the basis of potentialities and not of need. Need is clearly one of the criteria which the Board will have to have in mind. It is not necessary to specify whose need, but we do feel it reasonable that it should also take demand into account, with reference not only to the present but also to the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Speaker: It did occur to me that it might be convenient to the House that this Amendment should be discussed with the next three Amendments in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and of other hon. Members.

Mr. Strauss: I am glad you have suggested that, Mr. Speaker, because I think that it will indeed be for the convenience of the House if we discuss these four Amendments together.
These Amendments concern the responsibility for fare fixing, or rather the extent to which the Board and the Minister should take into account the fare aspect of any service licence which they grant. This is a difficult matter. I raised the problem on Second Reading, and the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary indicated on that occasion that they were likely to give the matter more thought because it seemed this great problem of the fare aspect of the licence would have to be considered both by the Board and the Minister, and as these things are highly controversial it seemed to them that there might be many cases of double hearing.
We then discussed the matter further in Committee, and the Minister gave the matter consideration again, as a result of which we have a different proposal before us now in the Bill, compared with that which was originally brought forward. If the difference has been in any way brought about by my anxiety on the matter or by the questions which I asked, I am sorry I expressed that anxiety or asked those questions, the present state of the Bill is worse than the first.
I want to be brief and to come at once to the essential point, quite apart from the many difficulties which I see arising from this double hearing of the fare aspect by the Board and Minister. I think it dangerous and wrong—I am not talking about domestic services or, indeed, for the moment, cabotage services —that the fare aspect of licences for foreign services should be considered by the Board at all. It does not seem to me that it should have any standing or interest in the matter. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us in a moment that there is no need for it to consider it. That is perfectly true, but it is able to consider it as the Bill now stands.
Let me put before the House the procedure, as I understand it, now existing for the settlement of fares for long distance overseas services. The Corporations go to I.A.T.A. to discuss there what the fare levels should be. They discuss general questions of policy and they can also consider matters of detail. This is in pursuance of their normal commercial policy, and it is a very important part of that policy. Before going, they quite rightly go to the Minister and say, "This is what we propose. We want your views and agreement." Agreement is finally reached on matters of broad principle and then the Corporations go to I.A.T.A., put forward their views and try to reach the best agreement they can. They may vary the broad policy agreed by the Minister in some detail here and there. That seems to me perfectly satisfactory.
What happens under the Bill, however, is that the Board when granting licences for foreign services can consider the fare aspect. I think that that is wrong. When we were considering the Bill as


first drafted, it was clearly and deliberately stated that all foreign service fares should be settled by the Minister, but now that is not so; the question can go to the Minister on appeal, but the Board is now capable of considering it at an early stage.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with this point in Committee and made a statement as follows:
What my right hon. Friend has in mind in using that form of words is that in the case of most international fares the Board may well find it not convenient to fix a precise fare but more convenient to specify simply that the fare should be in accord with current I.A.T.A. rates.
Then later he said:
There is, of course, nothing in the new Amendment to require any British operators, either corporations or independents, either to get the view of the Board before proceeding to the annual I.A.T.A. discussions or to obtain the Board's views on fares when I.A.T.A. has fixed them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 24th March, 1960, c. 120–124.]
That is perfectly true.
But members of the Board tomorrow may think that they can carry out their duty in another way and can ignore the views of the Parliamentary Secretary. They may say "We are entitled under the Bill to consider the fare aspect. We think we ought to do so," and they may project themselves into the negotiations which the Corporations now carry out at I.A.T.A. and in a way which may interfere with the carrying out of commercial policy as they think fit. Therefore it seems to us that the right thing to do—and it does not damage the Board or have any harmful effect—is to make it absolutely clear that on all services, other than domestic services and cabotage services, the fares, should be fixed by the Minister.
The Minister's first thoughts on this matter were absolutely right, and when the fares are fixed by the Minister it has the advantage that he is responsible to the House. But as a result of alterations which he has made and which we seek to put right by our Amendments, the Board may, can and is in a position to interfere in the first place with fare-fixing arrangements, which can be dealt with by the Minister on appeal. Having regard to the fact that the present Minister

and Parliamentary Secretary may no longer be in office, we feel rather strongly that this should be put right. The method we propose seems the proper way to do it. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will consider this proposition. We hope that they will either consider the Amendments or undertake to give further consideration to this matter before it goes to another place.

Mr. Rippon: We welcome the opportunity of having a further discussion on this important matter. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is perfectly correct when he says that as a result of points raised on Second Reading and in Committee we have made a material alteration in the original provisions of the Bill. I think we all agree that no difficulty would arise in respect of the fixing of domestic fares. That has been agreed from the outset; the tariff will be fixed by the Board and specified in the licence and no confirmation by the Minister will be necessary, but the right of appeal will apply. In the case of all other services, both the cabotage and the international services, the Bill as originally drafted left the fares to be fixed by my right hon. Friend, but it was pointed out that this question of tariffs must to a considerable extent be relevant to applications which would come before the Board. It is, therefore, now provided that the Board will in the first instance specify these tariffs.
It can do this in two ways. It can either specify them in the licence as a precise figure or it can specify in the licence how the tariff is to be determined; and the point about "how the tariff is to be determined" is to enable the Board in appropriate cases to specify that the I.A.T.A. tariff for the time being in force shall apply. No difficulty will arise over that, and we are satisfied that it will not have any such serious effect as the right hon. Gentleman feared on I.A.T.A. negotiations. In these licences it will simply be specified that the tariff will be the I.A.T.A. tariff for the time being on force. If that is changed as a result of international negotiations, then automatically the tariff will be changed in accordance with the precise terms of the licence.
In other cases, especially on cabotage routes where there is no I.A.T.A. fare, the Board will be able to set the tariff


out in the licence in the first instance, but I should emphasise that in every case in respect of external services the tariff specified by the Board, by whatever means, must be confirmed by my right hon. Friend, with or without modifications. He therefore retains the ultimate responsibility, but it is recognised that in fixing a tariff it is proper that there should be some original discussion in the proceedings before the Board. The normal right of appeal will apply in any case, but where my right hon. Friend makes a modification in a tariff proposed by the Board, if it is a case with no objection in the first instance he will consult the various parties who might be affected.
It will be important to keep these tariffs in line with international obligations. The House is aware that under Clause 2 (3) there is provision for consultation with the Board on these matters of external relations. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that we have considered carefully the point he raised and that the difficulties which he envisaged will not arise.

Mr. Chetwynd: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his careful explanation, but it still leaves us unsatisfied whether this is the wise thing to do. We think that it would be better to revert to the original situation in which the Minister alone was responsible for arranging external fares and cabotage fares. We are fortified in that view by the Minister's decision of 5th April, in which he announced to the House that he had agreed to the fares arrived at after long negotiations by I.A.T.A. for external services and that he had also agreed to the cabotage fares, pending some minor negotiations with some of the colonial authorities. It seems to us that he should follow that path in the future and not insert another link in the command on fares, as it were, by including the Board.
I.A.T.A. fares are fixed by agreement of the companes concerned, subject to Government approval, but from time to time there is a breakdown in this arrangement, when it is left to individual Governments to arrange bilateral fares between one country and another. It is complicating matters far too much to bring in the Board as a third party, especially as the Parliamentary Secretary

said that for external service all the Board will do will be to rubber-stamp whatever agreement is reached by the operators in I.A.T.A.
It seems that the Board will create a staff to enter the fare-fixing business. The Minister has a staff in his Department doing precisely the same thing, and the operating companies have staffs doing precisely the same thing, and the result will be to make the system far too complex, when we know from experience that the present arrangements, by which the Minister takes the decision and tells the House what he has done, are far and away the best.
10.45 p.m.
The need for the Minister's Amendment as against that of my right hon. Friend is even further lessened by the arrangements already made, which are due to operate on 1st October this year, whereby the cabotage routes, with the exception of the Far East, will be shared between the independent companies and the Corporations. I understand, for instance, that the Gibraltar route agreement is to last for ten years and that for the Malta route there is a three-year agreement. Already, it seems, much of the work which otherwise the Board would have had to do in allocating licences and fares has been done before the Board comes into operation. That is a further reason why, we feel, the interposition of the Board is unnecessary.
Is it necessary to wait until 1st October for the fares which have been arranged by the Minister to come into operation? I refer in particular to the cabotage routes, which are within the Minister's sole control. Could not these fares operate just as soon as the companies wish to operate them?
Must the Board go to I.A.T.A. and have a representative there to discuss matters, or will it leave it entirely to the Corporations—and now, I suppose, the independents—to go to I.A.T.A. to do this? On balance, we think that it would be wiser for the Minister to accept our proposal and to retain within his own hands the full powers of fare-fixing on the external routes.

Mr. Sandys: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has made clear, we have no desire in any way to interfere with the workings of I.A.T.A.


The Board will not have any direct contacts with I.A.T.A. The British representatives there will be the Corporations and the independent companies, as now. The independent companies are already represented at I.A.T.A.
Concerning the Board's handling of fares, the main reason why I thought it right, after considering the views expressed in Committee as well as on Second Reading, to propose the alteration that was adopted in Committee, was that I considered it difficult for the Board and for the operators to perform their various rôles if external fares were excluded from consideration by the Board.
In the first place, an applicant for a licence for a service cannot put forward his application in a vacuum. He must do it in relation to a class of service and to a particular fare. He might not want the licence if he is allotted a quite different fare to the one he had in mind. This is extremely relevant. It is relevant also to the objector. When an application comes before the Board, another airline will want to know whether to object or to allow the application to go through without making an objection.
Whether it makes an objection will depend often on what the fare is to be. If it is to be higher than its own fare or a different class of fare which does not affect it, the airline will not wish to object. If, on the other hand, the applicant proposes to introduce a service that would undercut the fares of the airline, it is likely to want to object and to argue the case before the Board. It would be difficult for the Board properly to perform its functions unless, when an application comes before it, there is also an indication of the rate of fare and the class of service which an operator proposes to introduce.
With that explanation, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that it is necessary for the Board to have regard to fares in this manner.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "force", to insert:
and not later than the prescribed time before the expiry of the term for which it was granted".

Perhaps at the same time we might discuss the related Amendment—page 5, line 24, to leave out "term for which it was granted" and insert "said term".
The effect of these Amendments is to permit the Minister by regulation to prescribe the date before which any application for the continuance of a licence must be made if the applicant is to benefit from the provisions of Clause 2 (8). The purpose of the subsection is to ensure the continuance of licences while the Board is considering applications or during an appeal. Clearly it is wrong that in order to obtain extra time the holder of a licence should delay his application until the last minute. These Amendments fulfil an undertaking which I gave to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) in Committee when he proposed that the period should be at least six months before the expiry of the licence. That would be all right for long-term licences, but some are for a much shorter period and, therefore, my right hon. Friend thought that it would be right to have the greater flexibility which is provided by these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 24, leave out "term for which it wa granted" and insert "said term".— [Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 5.—(REGULATIONS)

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
(b) with respect to the furnishing by persons making an application, objection or representation to the Board of information or documents relevant thereto;
(c) with respect to the provision by holders of air service licences or air operator's certificates of statistical or other information with respect to their operations to which the licence or certificate relates.
Perhaps it would be convenient also to discuss the Amendment to Clause 6, page 8, line 39, which provides the appropriate penalty.
These Amendments fulfil undertakings given during the Committee stage discussions to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). Paragraph (b) in the Amendment is a rewording of the existing paragraph (b) in subsection (2) and widens the power of the Minister by enabling him to make regulations with


respect to the furnishing of information, not only in respect of the application, but also of objections and representations. Obviously it would be for the convenience of everyone if the objector and representor had to give information to support their claims as well as the applicant.
Paragraph (c) empowers my right hon. Friend by regulation to require the holders of air service licences or air operators certicates to provide statistical or other information respecting their operations. At the moment, such information is obtained through the machinery of the A.T.A.C., and it is obviously more satisfactory that this should be done as a plain requirement under the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(ENFORCEMENT OF LICENSING PROVISIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 39, at end insert:
(3) If the holder of any air service licence or air operator's certificate fails without reasonable cause to comply with any requirement of any regulations with respect to the provision of information made by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section five of this Act, he shall in respect of each such failure be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.[Mr. Sandys.]

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, to leave out "Act" and to insert "section".
This Amendment and the Amendments in page 9, lines 26 and 46, are drafting Amendments consequential upon the introduction of the present Clause 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 26, leave out "Act" and insert "section".—[Mr. Sandys.]

Clause 7.—(PROHIBITION OF AERIAL ADVERTISING AND PROPAGANDA.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, to leave out from the beginning to "aircraft" in line 31 and to insert:
The Minister may by regulations make provisions as to the conditions under which an.
Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we

also discussed the two later Amendments, in line 32 to leave out "shall" and to insert "may," and in line 38 to leave out "the foregoing subsection" and to insert "such conditions."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That would be convenient.

Mr. Page: Clause 7 prohibits aerial advertising from the moment this Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Amendment is intended to make aerial advertising conditional rather than to prohibit it altogether; to make it subject to such conditions as the Minister may see fit to make by regulations.
At present, aerial advertising is subject to conditions and is under the control of the Minister, but apparently, as I read the report of the Committee stage, the Minister requires further powers to control aerial advertising, and that is why the Amendment is framed in this way. The Clause, if I may say so, seemed to have been slipped into the Bill at a very late stage—late on the fourth and last day of the Committee—and would have the effect of turning lawful businessmen into criminals by a stroke of the pen, or at least by only about nine columns of the Committee report.
The Clause has not been before the House before, and I feel that even at this late hour it is a very important matter which should receive the consideration of the House. The principle of the Clause was supported by my right hon. Friend in phrases such as this:
Aerial advertising could easily become an unconscionable nuisance and a danger because … it takes place as often as not over the heads of very large crowds and we could have a very nasty disaster.
I do not understand that as a ground for complete prohibition, because the Minister himself already lays down regulations for this flying. Every flight on which aerial advertising is done, whether it be sky-writing or banner-towing, or loud-hailing, has to be cleared by his officers.
The operators give their full flight programme. The whole thing is cleared not only by traffic control officers but by the divisional officer of the Ministry. Does my right hon. Friend mean by what he said in Committee that the regulations are not observed? Or does he mean that the regulations are not sufficient? If they are not observed, then the operators


should be prosecuted; if they are not sufficient, then let him make further sufficient regulations to govern it. But it does seem quite a wrong thing to prohibit aerial advertising altogether, certainly on the ground of danger.
Sky-writing does not take place directly over the heads of large crowds but at 14,000 to 15,000 feet. Banner-towing, although it takes place at a much lower height, is regulated, I believe, to something over 1,500 feet. The whole course that is taken, the time over the crowded area, everything is regulated at present, and every flight is properly cleared by the Ministry's divisional officer.
My right hon. Friend also said in Committee:
If developed to any scale at all it would be an infernal nuisance and we would all wish to have it controlled and prohibited.
Again I do not understand what was meant by "controlled and prohibited". Either it is to be controlled or to be prohibited. At present it is controlled. The Clause as it stands would prohibit it. On what grounds? I think I have shown that it can be controlled so that it is not dangerous. It is under that control at present. Such extravagant argument as was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) in Committee about ears being split by low-flying aerial advertising aircraft is quite untrue, because that could not happen under existing Regulations, or if it did the operator should be prosecuted for defying the regulations.
11.0 p.m.
If aerial advertising is to be prohibited on aesthetic grounds, let us say so and prohibit all outdoor advertising, because there is very little distinction. But that was not the ground put forward for prohibiting it during the Committee stage. The ground then was that it was either a danger or a nuisance, both of which are under present control, and if the control is not sufficient, let the Minister make further regulations.
The Clause as it stands would convert this trade into an unlawful one overnight. My right hon. Friend, the Minister, realised these difficulties when he said in Committee:
… it is just as well to make quite sure now before people have invested a lot of

capital in acquiring aircraft and equipment for this purpose.
And later, when he said:
We know all the difficulties, unfairnesses and injustices which can arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 29th March, 1960; c. 1745.]
Those difficulties, unfairnesses and injustices will arise if the Clause stands as it is now. There are about half-a-dozen firms operating this business at present. Aerial advertising is used not "unethically" or "indecently", which are the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, but by reputable firms, and a considerable amount of investment is in that business already.
These six or so firms have invested large sums in aircraft, and in skilled pilots. They do service not only over this country but over the continent. It is not the sort of trade one could cut off just like that. A great deal of invested capital will be lost if this Clause remains as it is.
At present the trade is carried on by well-maintained aircraft and by skilled pilots, serving reputable firms who desire to advertise in that way. It is a trade which is well controlled by the regulations already issued by the Minister. Programmes, I understand, have already been arranged for months ahead, and to make it unlawful by a stroke of the pen would cause very great hardship, great unfairness and complete injustice to those operating it.

Mr. Sandys: I am afraid I cannot support my hon. Friend's Amendments. He says that this has all been done by a stroke of the pen, but the principle of prohibition of aerial advertising was already accepted by the House several years ago when a Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), was given a Second Reading. It did not get on to the Statute Book because it was counted out in Committee, for quite different reasons, as sometimes happens.
During the course of our discussions in Committee it became clear that the general view was that the use of the sky for advertising was likely to create a nuisance and a danger, and that it was desirable to prohibit it now, before it developed on any appreciable scale, and before operators invested in a lot of


capital in acquiring aircraft and equipment for this purpose. My hon. Friend suggested that we should use regulations to control this business, but if it is the general intention of the House that this form of advertising should be prohibited, it is much better to say so and put the necessary provision on to the Statute Book than to have applications constantly turned down by the Administration.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What is the meaning of the words:
Save for such purposes and in such manner as may be prescribed"?
Does my right hon. Friend intend to allow a certain amount of this advertising?

Mr. Sandys: The intention of those words is to make it quite clear that the police, and agents of the police, and other public authorities which may require to use a helicopter for the control of traffic, and things of that kind, shall not be prevented from using aircraft for loud-hailing. What we have in mind as public purposes, and not advertising.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the saving words still permit what happened during the election campaign in Essex, namely, the appearance in the sky over my constituency of the words "Vote Mac"? Whether that was an advertisement for some form of wearing apparel I do not know, but can we be assured that it is not contemplated that the saving words shall permit that kind of advertising?

Mr. Sandys: That was not in my mind, but the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) has put it into my mind, and I shall have to study the point. The Clause is worded in such a way as to prevent the use of the sky for advertising, for commercial, political or any other purposes, while enabling aircraft to be used for public purposes where that is necessary.
So far as I know—although I may be wrong—at present there is no aircraft operating company whose sole business consists of aerial advertising. There are a few firms who carry on a certain amount of loud-hailing, sky-writing and banner-towing, but it is mostly done in and out with crop spraying, pleasure flights and other forms of flying. My

hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is not correct when he says that this is all going to happen overnight, the moment the Bill becomes law. As is the case with most of this type of legislation, the Bill provides that its various parts may be brought into operation at different times, by Statutory Instrument.
Although I am quite sure that it is right to scotch this kind of activity before it becomes an intolerable nuisance I do not wish unfairly to penalise those who are at present engaged in this business. I therefore propose to allow quite an appreciable interval to elapse before bringing the Clause into effect. This will give the firms concerned time to readjust their operations.
I will go further and say that before fixing the date for the coming into effect of Clause 7 I will consider any representations which those companies may wish to make. This will give them the opportunity of explaining their position to me.
With that assurance, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: What does the Minister mean by "an appreciable time" before the Clause comes into operation? If he means a few months to allow these discussions to take place and to see that no sudden hardship comes to these firms, I do not think anybody would object to that. If he has in mind a number of years, such a decision would be regretted by all sections of the House. All we can do is to ask the Minister what sort of period he has in mind that should elapse before these regulations come into effect.

Mr. Sandys: I have no particular period in mind, but I am most anxious not to cause hardship or injustice to comparatively small firms. It is clear that the moment this provision gets on to the Statute Book no firm in the country will buy additional aircraft for this purpose, and it is clear that the firms engaged in this business will, as quickly as possible, adjust their activities into some other channel. It will therefore be a dying business from the moment this Bill gets on to the Statute Book. It will be from tonight no doubt also.
I do not want to cause hardship or injustice. At the moment, as we all


know, it is not a nuisance. We are trying to forestall a nuisance before a lot of money and capital is invested in the business. It is much better to do this in advance. I therefore ask the House to leave me some latitude to try to apply this thing in a way which will cause the least hardship or distress to those who have been engaged in this perfectly legitimate business.

Mr. Page: With your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I should like to comment in a few sentences on what my right hon. Friend said.
He queried whether firms had invested in this type of business alone. Without mentioning the name of it, I assure him that one firm has invested £15,000 to £20,000 in this type of business alone. If he will bear that in mind in considering the time to be left to the firm to run that sum down and turn it to other work, I think that would meet the case.
In my view, my right hon. Friend is dead wrong in prohibiting this type of advertising and not merely controlling it, but I feel that I cannot carry the House with me on that. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking which my right hon. Friend has given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, to leave out from "Save" to "as" and to insert "in such circumstances."
This is a purely drafting Amendment designed to ensure that the Minister prescribes all the circumstances in which aerial advertising may be done, and not merely the purpose and manner, as it says at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 9, line 46, at the end, to insert:
and subsections (5) and (6) of section six of this Act shall apply to any offence under this subsection as they apply to any offence under that section.
We discussed this Amendment earlier. I do not think there will be any opposition to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, at the end to insert:
and shall, as soon as may be after the end of each year, make a report to the Minister as to the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act in that year, which shall cover any particular matters on which the Minister bias requested them to report; and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
I gave an assurance to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I would introduce this provision that a report should be made by the Board to the Minister, and that the Minister would lay the report before Parliament. It did not go as far as he asked, but I have used precisely the same words that we used in an Act of Parliament with which he and I were concerned a few years ago. The right hon. Gentleman probably recognises the words. I think that they have proved satisfactory, and will ensure that Parliament is kept fully informed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(REPEAL OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS.)

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 10, line 25, to leave out "and."
It will no doubt be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we take that in line 26. These two related Amendments are merely consequential on the repeal of Section 13 of the Civil Aviation Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 26, at end insert:
and subsection (3) of section seven (which relates to one of the provisions repealed by the next following paragraph)."—[Mr. Rippon.]

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think that it will be necessary for me to make a lengthy speech at this stage. My right hon. Friend has sought at every stage to secure, subject to the over-riding right of the House to have the last word, agreement on transitional and other arrangements that will ensure that both the Corporations and the independents get off to a fair start under the new procedure, and I think that it is


fair to say that nothing has emerged from our discussions to suggest that any section of the air transport industry is dissatisfied with the main provisions of the Bill.
I should say that the coming into full operation of the provisions of the Bill will be largely determined by the progress made in preparing the necessary regulations. Consultations will be held with the interested parties, and I think that it will be accepted that we must allow them a reasonable period in which to form and express their views. During the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that the regulations to be made under the provisions of the Bill would be laid in draft in the Library. He also said that it would probably be for the convenience of both the House and the industry if, as far as possible, all the regulations were published as a whole. The work of preparation has already begun, and it is my right hon. Friend's intention that the regulations should be available as soon as possible.
Hon. Members on both sides have, in the course of our discussions, emphasised the enormous possibilities of air traffic expansion in the years ahead. This Measure will, we hope, create the conditions in which all the operators, both the Corporations and the independents, will be able to secure and exploit those possibilities to the full, and increasing opportunities will, we believe, be open to them.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I express thanks to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have listened to our arguments. They have not been able to accept all the points we have put forward, but have accepted a considerable number of matters of detail. As a result, we feel that the Bill has been improved to some extent in its passage through the House.
On the other hand, our fundamental objection has not been met, and we still think that in the Bill there is a danger to the Corporations. We shall keep a very careful watch indeed on the activities of the Board to make sure that the intentions of the Minister are not falsified. This, however, is not the time to press the matter any further. We have

made our point of view absolutely clear on Second Reading, in Committee and on the Report stage. We are, naturally, disappointed that the Minister did not see fit to express in the Bill our views on the future of the Corporations. As I say, we shall watch his activities, and those of his successors, with great care.
I wonder whether the Minister could, at this stage, comment on the personnel of the Air Transport Licensing Board. This body will have a great responsibility for the future of the British aviation service. A number of names have been bandied about in relation to the chairmanship. The previous body had a great record of success, mainly because of the character and personality of its chairman, and we would hope that someone of that type would be made head of the new Board.
Has the Minister anything to say about the appointed day? Perhaps there will be different days for different parts of the Bill. We would like the part dealing with safety, to which we attach great importance and which has hardly been mentioned today, to come into operation as soon as possible. When will the regulations affecting the air operators' certificates be made?
Much of the Board's work has already been overtaken by events. The fare fixing which has already been announced for this year and for future years, and the sharing of routes in different parts of the world between the Corporations and the independents, has, naturally, taken a good deal of the work with which the Board might otherwise have been faced. Spheres of influence are already being created. New groups of companies are being formed. We attach great importance to the work which the Air Transport Licensing Board will have to do and we shall watch its progress with great interest.
After all this, I feel that we have had a pleasant flight. It was a little bumpy in places, though not quite as rough as the Minister of Aviation had it yesterday. Nevertheless, we have been airborne quite long enough and it is time that we came in to land.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: There have been two very sad faces in the House for some time, one belonging to the hon. Member


for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and the other belonging to the hon. Member for Gloucester—myself. I feel that I have a double duty on Third Reading to try to present not only my own views, but also those which, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Belfast, East was gagged and prevented from saying by the terror of the Chief Whip and the remarks which he made. That was a great pity on an occasion when, in Parliament, we hope to improve a Bill and enjoy what remains to us of free speech.
My reason for rising at this late hour is to say how much I regret that the Bill should have been brought forward in its present form. I regret it on the ground that civil aviation is one of our most important industries. It leads the whole of the engineering industry. The damage done to civil aviation is very widespread damage.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Bill damages civil aviation, and I will try in a short time to explain why. We have been told on many occasions that it has been the fact hitherto, certainly until the early 1950s, that the flag carriers were the two Corporations. They enjoyed the confidence of the Government, the House and the people.
Does the Minister work best when he feels that he has the confidence of his supporters behind him? Does he work best when he feels that he is getting a pat on the back or when he is in the irritable and nagging situation that we had a short time ago? Which does he feel stimulates him to the most constructive activity? He and everyone else in the House who knows the first thing about running large-scale organisations knows that the success of an organisation depends on the spirit of the workers in it. By "the workers" I mean from top to bottom, from chairman downwards.
The spirit in the two Corporations, which I have seen recently, is excellent. By the Bill, they are being told that they no longer enjoy the confidence of this Government or the nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense".] Yes, they are. Whereas, before, they could rely on receiving full and favourable consideration, even being considered as favourites, from now on they will not be regarded as desirable in the same sense as they

were before. There is a good deal of support being removed from them. The Bill means nothing if it does not mean that. Whereas, before, they had the field to themselves, it is made perfectly clear that from now on they are not to be regarded with the same favour and are not to have the same support.
That is a very depressing feeling for those working in these two Corporations, and it will mean inevitably that those responsible in a major way will start looking over their shoulders and saying to themselves, "So that is the way the wind is blowing. The wind of change is blowing in this direction, and to make £2 million profit means that we have a Bill of this kind." For the two things are closely related. There is, then, that pressure. I am not referring to the accident provisions in the Bill. I am referring to the provisions for opening up the field to wider and wider competition.
If there had not been a profit or the likelihood of a profit this year—

Mr. William Shepherd: B.O.A.C. made record losses last year.

Mr. Diamond: B.O.A.C. figures already show a very considerable improvement. The B.O.A.C. achievement in cross-Atlantic flight is very considerable indeed. It is not my fault if B.O.A.C. does not perhaps enjoy the same skilful and happy and understanding management as B.E.A. That is not under my control.
As I was saying, the damage being done to the two air Corporations is, first, that the support of the Government is seen to be being withdrawn from them now that it is known that there are plenty of opportunities for private enterprise to get involved in. I am not saying for one second that the Bill does damage because it permits competition. If it were fair competition I would be in favour of it. Nobody who has thought about the matter for two seconds can suggest that the two Corporations which have fought the toughest international competition successfully for years are going to be afraid of local competition, small or large. Of course not. They are not afraid of equal competition.
The Bill provides for unequal competition, because it puts on the Corporations responsibilities which are not put on the private operators. It puts greater


responsibilities on the Corporations and inequality of opportunity. Of course, it is right to say that they should both have fair shares in terms of seeking profit, but the Minister is quite wrong when he deprecates the suggestion that there are two classes. There are two classes. We have made two classes.
The nationalised Corporations are different from private operators. They have got different considerations. They have got different responsibilities. They cannot be pure profit-seeking private enterprise firms. They have got different calculations to make. Their boards have to take different problems into account. It is because they have to take those different problems into account that their costs are higher. If the Minister wants to achieve equality of competition, let him do it by putting equal responsibility on the private enterprise firms, on the private operators.
It is, of course, impossible when we have got an arrangement under which we have the nationalised Corporations responsible to him; to whom he can give directions in certain respects, whose activities he can interfere with in certain respects; whereas the private airlines run their affairs their way. They do not have to ring up the Minister and say, "We propose to do this. Is that all right?" They do not have to fear doing something which might offend the Minister unduly. They do not have to make arrangements with other firms which they do not want to enter into, because, otherwise, the Minister would be displeased. They can tell the Minister to sit down comfortably wherever he wants to sit down and can get on with running their own business in their own way.
As I say, the Minister—and the House by passing the Bill—are withdrawing support from these two Corporations, and are showing that there is a red light shining, shining for those who have responsible positions, warning that they had better look around to see whether they can find more attractive jobs elsewhere. They are putting on them the unfair local competition for which the Bill provides. It is for these reasons that I regard this as a most unacceptable Bill. I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, East is about to rise and, I hope, support me.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I do not intend, at this late hour, to detain the House very long. I appreciate the efforts of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) to intervene on my behalf, but I assure him that I was not deterred from speaking earlier in the debate by any voice which I might or might not have heard from the Government Front Bench. I had thought of intervening when an Amendment was moved which I had introduced in Committee, but I did not wish to detain the House by covering, a second time, ground which had been covered so well before. In any case, Mr. Speaker was already on his feet and that was why I resumed my seat. It was not because of any prompting from the Whips.
The hon. Member for Gloucester is completely wrong in interpreting my silence or my aims as being support for him. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the sentiments which he has just pronounced or that the Bill will expose the Corporations to unfair competition. I cannot agree that it is right that this country's future in aviation should be left in the hands of a monopoly, because that would be the position of the Corporations if the Opposition had its way. The Corporations are already well entrenched. Already, a great deal of public money is invested in them. Surely they can compete against small companies which do not receive any Government backing if they can go out into the world and compete against foreign airlines which are subsidised by their own Governments.
I foresee great expansion in the aircraft industry in future not only in passenger carrying, but also in the new exciting rô1e of air freighting. We have developed in this country new planes based on new techniques, like the turboprop Viscount and Vanguard, the Britannia and the Britannic, which is being built in my constituency. Because of something which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, I might add that I have no vested interest in any of the independent airlines.
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the number of Amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham


(Mr. Burden), my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and myself, which were on the Notice Paper in Committee, which have been accepted and incorporated in the Bill. In moving some of those Amendments I was acting in the interests of British aviation as a whole. The first Amendment on the Notice Paper today was designed to promote the expansion and advancement of British aviation, and I thought that it was quite wrong that it should be amended to mention the Corporations or the independents. There was no need to mention either.
The only things that I have had in mind in proposing Amendments and in supporting the Bill have been the British aviation and aircraft industries. It is the aircraft constructors who will benefit most from strong, sturdy independence. It is these independent aircraft operators who operate the Viscount, the Comet, the VC10 and other fine aircraft, which will sell throughout the world, who will benefit most in the long run.
The whole engineering industry and, indeed, the whole country will benefit from the wise measures adopted in the Bill. The travelling public will benefit from low fares. The Vanguard is capable of carrying up to 150 passengers at almost half the rates now charged. The travelling public and the taxpayers with money invested in the Corporations— these are the people who will benefit from the Bill. I have great pleasure in supporting its Third Reading.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I want to say a few words before we part with the Bill. First, I express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), and to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members opposite, for the way in which they have handled the Bill. Our discussions have been helpful and constructive throughout, and I readily accept that the Bill has been strengthened and improved as a result of the Amendments which we have made.

We can be happy with the results of our work.
I recognise that there is a difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on the position of the Corporations. But I think that hon. Members opposite accept the assurance which I have given, which, at any rate, reflects my own view, that the Corporations represent a very important element in our aviation and will continue to do so, and that it is in the interests of everyone in the country that they should continue to be the main flag carriers of the British air mercantile fleet.
The Bill will alter the arrangements for licensing, and I should like to take the opportunity to express my thanks and those, I believe, of the whole House to the Air Transport Advisory Council and its chairman, Lord Terrington, because the Council has been doing this job for a long time without adequate powers and it is primarily due to the Council's wisdom and judgment, and that of its chairman, in particular, that it has discharged these duties with such success and to such general satisfaction.
The hon. Member for Stockon-on-Tees asked me whether I would say something about the membership of the Board. I do not know what the membership of the Board will be, although, naturally, I have given the matter some thought, and, in any event, it would be improper for me to give names, even if I were in a position to do so, before the Bill had reached the Statute Book.
I return to the main difference which divides us on the Bill. I am sure that the new Licensing Board will administer the Act in a manner which will be fair and equitable to all operators, whether they be Corporations or independent. I believe that there is room for all, and I hope and believe that the Act will give a useful and constructive new impetus to British civil aviation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed.

HONG KONG (BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: On 10th March, I put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies asking him whether he would consider appointing an independent inquiry to investigate bribery and corruption in Hong Kong. His reply, to be found in col. 614 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, was,
No, Sir. This subject is kept under frequent review
—I emphasise the word "frequent"—
by the Governor, with the assistance of a Standing Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 614.]
I submitted a further Question on 30th March and asked how often the Standing Committee, which assists the Governor in keeping this matter under frequent review, had met from 1956 to 1959. From the Answer, it emerged that the Standing Committee had met eight times in 1957, once in 1958, twice in 1959 and once this year. In other words, the special Standing Committee which is to assist the Governor in keeping under frequent review bribery and corruption in Hong Kong met only three times in the two years 1958 and 1959, when bribery and corruption in Hong Kong was probably worse than ever before and the position was rapidly deteriorating. This type of misleading information is not untypical of what comes from the colonial Administration in Hong Kong. The notorious Mountain Lead Mines case is a classic example.
On 23rd March, in answer to a Question, it emerged that the Standing Committee had been broadened and now included the Attorney-General and Mr. H. D. M. Barton. I have no doubt that this broadening or strengthening of the Committee was due to the blistering attack on bribery and corruption in Hong Kong made by the China Mail on 12th February last, about which I shall have more to say presently.
The Mountain Lead Mines case calls into serious question the department of the Attorney-General in Hong Kong.

To my mind, there is no doubt that Mr. Hogarth and two others were wrongly charged. In any case, they were found not guilty. In Hong Kong, there are serious suggestions that the man who should have been charged was not proceeded against because of powerful pressure on the Attorney-General's department. This Mountain Lead Mines case stinks in Hong Kong and I hope that hon. Members who are interested will do me the honour of reading the case I presented to the House about a year ago in Vol. 604, c. 1235–39, of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I cannot go into that case at any length tonight, but the nub of it is admirably summarised by a correspondent whose letter appeared in a recent edition of the South China Morning Post. I quote what he said:
The Attorney-General, with tongue in cheek, criticises the reluctance of members of the public to play their part in enforcement of the law, but the fact is that the public do not trust their government and they fear reprisals.
There was the instance of the mining case a few years ago when Mr. Colin Burns exposed a high European government servant. Mr. Burns was mentioned in the House of Commons for his public-spirited action, but how was appreciation shown? Government withdrew his company's mining licence and thus rendered his investment valueless, a ruthless and vindictive action, to teach Mr. Burns a lesson for sticking his neck out. This is another Grantham legacy.
I regret to say that, from what I know of the case, what I have quoted from that letter is probably substantially true.
Mr. Barton is a member of the new, broadened Committee, Mr. Barton is an honourable man. I say that in all sincerity and I in no way question his integrity. I am, however, questioning his suitability to serve on a committee of this kind and carry with him the confidence of the public, by which I mean the ordinary people of Hong Kong, including the broad masses of the Chinese, and not the small group of wealthy Europeans and Chinese in Hong Kong.
Mr. Barton is a director of the Hong Kong Electric Company, about which I shall have something more to say later. When he and his fellow directors have been faced in recent years with a conflict between the public interest and private interests they have, not surprisingly, come down on the side of private interests. The person appointed for a


job of this type must clearly demonstrate that the public interest is the overriding consideration. The Committee, even though it meets more frequently than its farcical predecessor, cannot deal with the problem at issue. It does not inspire confidence in Hong Kong.
Bribery and corruption in Hong Kong is very bad indeed, it is worse than ever before. In my judgment, it has reached a critical stage and threatens the very stability of the Colony. My assessment is based on reports, newspapers and public documents and it is evident that something is drastically wrong. I have had the privilege of visiting Hong Kong on three occasions, in 1946, 1950 and 1958, and I have seen something of the deterioration in the position. I know that bribery and "squeeze" has long been associated with the Eastern way of life, but things have got to a desperate pass and the situation has reached a dangerous stage. To a large extent it arises out of the mad scramble for wealth which there has been in Hong Kong in recent years.
Mr. Brook Bernacchi, chairman of the Hong Kong Reform Club, a man of high esteem and well respected in Hong Kong, says:
Corruption is bad in every big city, but Hong King is one of the worst in the world.
In the Mountain Lead Mines case, to which I referred, Mr. Justice Charles is on record as saying:
Corruption is all too prevalent in the Colony.
I wish to quote extracts from what is a staggering article in the China Mail of 12th February:
A correspondent's assertion that an impartial commission of inquiry is needed to investigate corruption will be received with wide approval. The extent of this evil, more than any other, is our greatest cause for shame. For all that is admirable in this Colony, for all our dazzling prosperity, the great achievements of Government and the genuine hard work that has gone into making Hong Kong the place it is today, corruption is the millstone around our neck, dragging us down and down. It is impossible to exaggerate its incidence and perhaps the only reason Government could offer for not holding a public inquiry is that the resultant scandal and shock would rock Hong Kong to its foundations. The correspondent is quite right when he says that Government could never successfully carry out such an investigation for there are few who would dare to probe it to its true depths … At its highest level fortunes

are passed over for favours, and at its lowest the odd dollar or so as 'tea money.'
It concludes:
But perhaps Hong Kong needs the shock that a truly impartial investigation could give.
Perhaps we have been telling ourselves how good we are for too long And it would be a change for us as well as others to know how really rotten we are. Perhaps only then will Hong Kong be driven by shame and desperation to work out useful methods of correction.
That is one paper. It is confirmed by the Hong Kong Tiger Standard on Tuesday, 22nd March:
While there are some ugly black stains on the record of a handful of our top firms which have extensive contacts with the public, no private business house of any size has within its staff structure an organised system of corruption as it exists today within the Government.
To most Hong Kong residents, unless he is blessed with the innocence of a child, corruption in certain sectors of our civil service is an open secret.
The Catholic Sunday Examiner said:
Corruption in the form of squeeze goes down to the lowest rank of Hong Kong citizens … but it is essential that reform should begin at the top even if necessary in the most august ranks.
I wish to say a few words about the Electricity Supply Commission's investigation and report. This investigated the Hong Kong Electric Company and the China Light and Power Company. This is not a story of corruption but it is far from being a story of probity and upright commercial and business dealings.
These are private monopolies and they have a record of high charges and huge profits. In 1946–58, their retained and distributed profits came to ·83d. per unit sold, averaged over the whole period. In 1958–59, the United Kingdom Electricity Authority price per unit for interest payments and consolidated surplus was equal to.27d. If that Authority had charged on the basis of those in Hong Kong it would have made a consolidated surplus last year of £150 million more than it did, and over the years in question, 1946–1959, would have made £1,000 million consolidated surplus higher than it did.
Distributed profits of the Hong Kong private electricity companies over these twelve years averaged ½d. per unit and the Commission condemned the policy of charging less than the cost of production for certain industrial users. To what


extent were directors of these electricity companies also directors of these preferential customers? That needs investigating.
The Commission recommended outright nationalisation and the two companies' bluff was called, because, before the Commission, they had said that either they must be left to work uninterfered with, or they must be taken over completely. I have not the time to read extracts from the Report referring to that. It is on page 31. A copy is in the Library of the House. It is a most interesting Report and I commend it to hon. Members.
Now the companies go cap-in-hand to the Hong Kong Government and ask them not to nationalise. Or did the Hong Kong Government ask them to make this request? Now there is to be a twelve months' moratorium. There is to be an informal approach to be explored to find a compromise. I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that this will provoke disquiet and suspicion in Hong Kong.
I had intended saying something about the recruitment of seamen in Hong Kong. This, I believe, is a racket. I have not the time to make any further reference to it tonight, but I hope that the Colonial Secretary will have it looked into and, if it is the racket I think it is, see that it is burst wide open.
The problem of bribery and corruption in Hong Kong cannot be dealt with effectively by Hong Kong itself. Too many people are involved, some deeply, some slightly. This is not to say that there are not people of probity in Hong Kong. Of course, there are, Europeans and Chinese. But their lot year by year is made more difficult, and in the interests of these people who find honourable dealings and clean business and administration more difficult, and in the interests of the great mass of poor Chinese who are the ultimate sufferers, I urge that an independent Commission from the United Kingdom be appointed.
Let us not ignore what has happened recently in South Korea. I have been in South Korea within the last two years, and my conviction is that bribery and corruption was more at the root of the trouble there than rigged elections. Let us remember that these things that happen in these great underdeveloped continents

have a habit of spreading. I urge the Colonial Secretary to give urgent consideration to this matter. I feel very seriously about it. A critical stage has been reached and something drastic should be done, emanating from this House which has the ultimate responsibility.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I am grateful for the opportunity of intervening shortly in this debate. In view of the fact that there is so little time I will speak directly to the point at machine-gun speed.
I have had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong twice privately during approximately the last twelve months. I have many Chinese and European friends there, in Government and outside. I am glad of the opportunity to pay tribute to both these sections of the community in Hong Kong for the tremendous amount of social work that they are doing. It is true that much remains to be done, but much has been done, and it is right to point out that this work has not gone unnoticed or unregarded in England.
It is plain, for all that the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has said, that the leading businessmen and Civil Servants in Hong Kong are scrupulously honest and above suspicion. It would be quite wrong if it were thought that we in this House in any way cast aspersions on their character. Private enterprise, too, has done a remarkable job of development in Hong Kong. Had if it is the opinion of the House that standard of living would be very much lower than it is today.
But there is some corruption, and there may be many reasons. Perhaps it is inadequate laws, perhaps the tradition of the East, perhaps many things are responsible, human weakness among them. But it is the opinion of the House that if corruption exists, even in the slightest degree, it must be rooted out.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the Committee established by the Government in Hong Kong. That has been strengthened not only by the appointment of the Attorney-General as chairman, but by Mr. Barton's appointment, by the appointment of a leading Chinese member of the community,


by the appointment of the Establishment Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
I regret, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman who, I recognise, is completely sincere, that he has attacked Mr. Barton. Mr. Barton has the respect of Chinese and Europeans alike because he has done much officially and unofficially to promote the welfare of the citizens of Hong Kong. I believe that the members of the Committee are suitable people to look into the causes. I have the terms of reference and they are broad. I hope the Colonial Secretary will make it clear that the Committee has his fullest support and will appeal to the people of Hong Kong to give it their support. I hope that he will also make it clear that he will watch the situation and not hesitate to intervene if necessary. That is the proper way to deal with this matter.
I have heard the argument used that if commercial people accept presents in the normal course of business, why should not civil servants. I hope my right hon. Friend will make it clear that such an argument has no sanction whatever from official quarters. We should be determined to root out corruption if and when it exists.

12 m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) intervened in the debate. I thought that he said more in four minutes than the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) did in the whole of his speech. When an hon. Member puts on the Order Paper of the House of Commons a subject for debate like bribery and corruption in Hong Kong, it is up to him to produce the facts to back up his assertions. There is a reason why, in my view, this duty—which has not been discharged by the hon. Member—should weigh more heavily upon him. He has many times been to Hong Kong; he is a leading spokesman of the Lancashire textile industry, which has often found itself in conflict with the interests of Hong Kong, and he can never find anything good to say about Hong Kong. Is he, therefore, the detached, analytical observer of the Hong Kong scene that he would like to put himself forward as?

Mr. Thornton: Mr. Thornton rose—

Mr. Macleod: I do not intend to give way.
Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman, sometimes, that perhaps his Lancashire spectacles rather blur his vision and make him distort the view? At least, there is a special responsibility on him, which he has failed notably to discharge tonight, to be scrupulous in buttressing with facts any case that he chooses to put forward, in view of his own interests.
I wish to deal with the situation in Hong Kong as I see it. Let me make it abundantly clear that it is no part of my case to argue that there is no corruption in Hong Kong; indeed, the size and even the existence of the anti-corruption branch in Hong Kong proves that up to the hilt. Of course, it is true that practices which, if a Government servant were involved, would amount to corruption, are, unhappily, commonplace in Hong Kong. The general prevalence of these practices is one of the greatest difficulties the Government must face in combating corruption in public service.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point that it is essential that the public service should accept for itself higher standards than those that might prevail outside it. But it is not easy, in the circumstances prevailing in Hong Kong, to maintain the standards for which I am certain that we must strive.
In my view, the case for a commission of inquiry falls to the ground because no facts are put forward to justify it. But I do not rule it out, if the hon. Member will produce evidence. I have read all the evidence to which he has referred, in the newspapers in Hong Kong. I have all the cuttings to which he has referred, and many more. So, because he has failed to put forward the criteria for a commission of inquiry, I will say what I feel the requirements should be. I would order a commission—or, rather, the Governor would; it is his responsibility rather than mine—if there were in Hong Kong flagrant cases of corruption, well known to the public, where people had escaped punishment because of the inadequacy of Government control, or if there were positive evidence of a substantial increase in general corruption.
The hon. Member kept saying that things are getting worse; but I do not believe that. Nor do the sources that I regard as particularly well-informed on this matter in Hong Kong. The third requirement would be that there should be practical ways, under existing legal principles, by which control of corruption could be tightened.
If I or the Governor were satisfied on all those matters I would gladly arrange for a commission of inquiry. But the Governor does not feel that these criteria have been met, and, therefore, he does not feel that there should be such an inquiry, and I wholly support him in this. It may be that the Governor, who is a man of very wide experience in these matters, is influenced to some extent by his experience as Governor of Singapore in 1957, because he appointed such a commission following the kind of Press comment to which the hon. Member has referred on the subject of corruption, and the report of the commission made it clear that, despite the invitation to the public to furnish information, very little material was forthcoming on which the commission could go to work, and the cases which it investigated showed that the allegations of corruption made could not be substantiated.
There is no question here, therefore, of the Government being reluctant in any way to investigate these matters. This is a first-rate Administration, very competently run, and I think that my hon. Friend dealt faithfully with the nasty little suggestion which the hon. Gentleman managed to get into his speech against a member of the new Committee. He is a man of great integrity in Hong Kong, and no suggestion should be made—

Mr. Thornton: I was at pains to say that he was an honourable man; that he was a man of the greatest possible integrity, but that he was faced with a conflict of interests which would not carry public support and confidence.

Mr. Macleod: Precisely. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. He started by saying that this man was an honourable man, and he went on to make what I say again was an extremely nasty and unfortunate suggestion against a man—

Mr. Thornton: It is the right hon. Gentleman's nasty mind.

Mr. Macleod: —of great probity and integrity.

Mr. Thornton: The right hon. Gentleman should answer the case.

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the number of times the old Committee met. I think that this is a very poor measure of its activity and that it does not bear any relation to the campaign against corruption that is being waged by the anti-corruption branch of the police force.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the Committee met only once in 1958, but that was because at its meeting in 1957 it made a series of policy recommendations on which the Government subsequently worked, and I believe that the new Committee will command considerable confidence in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Attorney-General and members of it, and I believe that this is the right way of going to work.
It is quite clear that there is no complacency whatever in the Hong Kong Administration. It is quite clear that it is eager, if real evidence is furnished, to try to root out corruption in Hong Kong, particularly in the Government service. If the hon. Gentleman likes to produce real evidence, the Governor will be most anxious to study it, and, if it is adequate, he will not necessarily be averse to setting up a commission of inquiry.

Mr. Thornton: Mr. Thornton rose—

Mr. Macleod: I cannot give way; there are only seconds left.
The hon. Gentleman has tonight conspicuously failed to produce the evidence which the sort of charges that he has made make it incumbent on him to produce.

Mr. Thornton: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to reply to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.